On 11/6/20 3:27 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/2/20 5:05 AM, Kai Tietz via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hello,
as noone seems to be able to review this patch, I will do so, even if
this is no longer a task of mine.
The patch itself is reasonable and seems to fix a pending issue we
have on CFA support. I
On 9/8/20 6:21 AM, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> Previously, the SEH version of _Unwind_Backtrace did unwind
> the stack and call the provided callback function as intended,
> but there was little the caller could do within the callback to
> actually get any info about that particular level in the
On 11/2/20 5:05 AM, Kai Tietz via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hello,
>
> as noone seems to be able to review this patch, I will do so, even if
> this is no longer a task of mine.
> The patch itself is reasonable and seems to fix a pending issue we
> have on CFA support. I had already private
On 9/8/20 12:21 PM, Martin Storsjö wrote:
Previously, the SEH version of _Unwind_Backtrace did unwind
the stack and call the provided callback function as intended,
but there was little the caller could do within the callback to
actually get any info about that particular level in the unwind.
Hello,
as noone seems to be able to review this patch, I will do so, even if
this is no longer a task of mine.
The patch itself is reasonable and seems to fix a pending issue we
have on CFA support. I had already private discussion with Martin,
and I would have loved to see a test-case
Previously, the SEH version of _Unwind_Backtrace did unwind
the stack and call the provided callback function as intended,
but there was little the caller could do within the callback to
actually get any info about that particular level in the unwind.
Set the ra and cfa pointers, which are used
