On February 6, 2026 9:48:24 AM PST, Jens Remus <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2/4/2026 1:49 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 2026-02-03 09:19, Jens Remus wrote: >>> - >>> +#if defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_AS_SFRAME) > >My understanding is that you would like above changed to: > >#ifdef CONFIG_AS_SFRAME > >>> + .cfi_sections .eh_frame, .debug_frame, .sframe >>> +#else >>> .cfi_sections .eh_frame, .debug_frame >>> +#endif >>> >> >> It would be better to: >> >> #undef CONFIG_AS_SFRAME /* i386 doesn't support .sframe */ >> >> in fake_32bit_build.h. >Due to (binutils 2.46 pre-release) GNU assembler supporting --gsframe-3, >but only for x86-64 not for x86-32 (nor x32) CONFIG_AS_SFRAME is enabled >even for my i386 cross build attempt. This then wrongly causes the >.cfi_sections with .sframe to be selected (verified by adding an #error >for testing). > >IIUC the .cfi_sections is there to have DWARF in both .eh_frame and >.debug_frame. For .sframe it basically has the same effect as >specifying the common assembler option --gsframe. Given the more >specific option --gsframe-3 is explicitly specified I think it would >be better to drop the changes to both dwarf2.h and fake_32bit_build.h >and solely rely on --gsframe-3. > >Josh, Indu, do you agree? > >Thanks and rRegards, >Jens
Seems a lot cleaner to me, too, assuming it actually works.
