https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Of course, it would be awesome if we could synchronize
(and document somewhere) FP stack layout between GCC and Clang
Isn't this what ARM should be doing?
Perhaps we should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #6 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #5)
Perhaps we should just disable fast unwind on ARM?
You will slowdown asan to the point where Valgrind will become preferable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ABI does not document a model for stack chains, so any use of a frame
pointer is, by definition, purely private to that function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So looks like fast unwinding in libsanitizer is not portable to GCC for ARM
Linux target because of incompatible frame pointer value. But how is
libsanitizer going to identify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #3 from Evgeniy Stepanov eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com ---
Yes, FP on ARM is non-standard and differs in GCC and Clang implementations.
Disabling fast unwind is not really an option, as you are looking at 10x, maybe
100x slowdown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
It should be possible to detect fp layout on the frame basis -
there is a slot (don't know which one off the top of my head)
that is FP in one compiler and return address in the
