On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Arun Sharma <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Keno Fischer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bump, does this patch look reasonable? > > Yes - looks reasonable to me. Wonder why it wasn't a problem for other > LLVM JIT users (eg: pyston?). > Now I'm curious too :) Though I don't think our eh_frame and text sections are that far apart. tbh I don't have a great understanding of the interaction between MCJIT and libunwind; for instance it also seems odd that the format that works is REMOTE_TABLE and not (non-remote) TABLE. > > > unw_dyn_remote_table_t, but > > I think you meant to say "Like REMOTE_TABLE, but ..". > > Perhaps call it IP_OFFSET instead of TABLE2? > > + if (di->format == UNW_INFO_FORMAT_REMOTE_TABLE || > + di->format == UNW_INFO_FORMAT_REMOTE_TABLE2) > > Could you wrap this in is_remote_table()? > > > + ip_base = segbase; > > Rename it something neutral that works for both the segbase and ip_base > cases? > > -Arun > > _______________________________________________ > Libunwind-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libunwind-devel >
_______________________________________________ Libunwind-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libunwind-devel
