mstorsjo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44494#1050783, @compnerd wrote:
> I really don't like this approach. I think that we should introduce a > different entry point for this behavior rather than saying that we go through > the existing interface. Having a reference to the `.eh_frame_hdr` seems > better, as it would be better to make use of that optimization and we already > have handling for that in libunwind. Well, this is just a plain `.eh_frame`, not an `.eh_frame_hdr`, since nothing for MinGW actually produces such a section for COFF (yet), GNU binutils doesn't either. Adding support for an indexed `.eh_frame_hdr`, while good from a performance PoV, feels like an orthogonal issue from this. This else clause isn't about `.eh_frame` vs `.eh_frame_hdr`, but about registering a single FDE (which libunwind's `__register_frame` currently does) vs registering a full `.eh_frame` section (which libgcc's `__register_frame` does). https://reviews.llvm.org/D44494 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
