On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:54:05PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > On 30.10.17 15:32, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:40:46 +0100 Andreas Tobler <andreast-l...@fgznet.ch> > > wrote: > >> Attached what I have for libgcc. It can be applied to gcc5-8, should > >> give no issues. The mentioned tc from this thread and mine, > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 do pass. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > Like I said before the return address can be anything. It could for > > instance point to some instruction in a random function and then the > > stack unwinder will think thread_start was called from that function. > > There's no check you can add to libgcc to distinguish that from a > > normal valid return address. > > > Maybe not, and most probably I do not understand what is happening. But > with my modification I survive the test case. > > If no objections from your or Konstantin's side come up I will commit it > to the gcc repo. It will not 'fix' the issue, but it will improve the > gcc behavior.
I posted something similar when the discussion thread started. From the cursory look, your patch is better than mine. The only difference that makes me wonder is that I used #ifdef KERN_PROC_SIGTRAMP around the block because I believe gcc has more relaxed policy about supporting obsoleted OS versions. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"