* Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > Another idea to detect missing frames: for each return address on the
> > stack,
> > ensure there's a corresponding "call <func>" instruction immediately
> > preceding
> > the return location, where <func> matches what's on the stack.
>
> Hmm, interesting.
>
> I hope your plans include rewriting the current stack unwinder completely.
> The
> thing in print_context_stack is (a) hard-to-understand and hard-to-modify
> crap
> and (b) is called in a loop from another file using totally ridiculous
> conventions.
So we had several attempts at making it better, any further improvements
(including radical rewrites) are more than welcome!
The generalization between the various stack walking methods certainly didn't
make
things easier to read - we might want to eliminate that by using better
primitives
to iterate over the stack frame.
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
