So, how can we promote this patch to be commited?
It is recommended to register the request on request traker at
http://www.openssl.org/support/rt.html
Ok. I sent an email to r...@openssl.org
Thanks Gilles
Yoni.
__
OpenSSL
Selon yoni londner jon...@gmail.com:
So, how can we promote this patch to be commited?
It is recommended to register the request on request traker at
http://www.openssl.org/support/rt.html
Give as much as you can details on how to use the change, which source tree is
patched. Eventually
Well, I did some testing with the slightly-modified patch (debian squeeze and
openbsd 4.9), and confirmed that this produces an .eh_frame which allows gdb to
walk the stack successfully if the program is stopped in or singlestepped
through md5_block_asm_data_order(). Some notes, though:
- Not
I wasn't proposing that the other changes had to be done now --- just
noting that the lack of unwind information seems to be a problem that most
of the assembly files have. I think the extra registers' unwind info for the
md5 asm is worth including now, though, since it's a tiny enhancement.
I agree entirely, but why not fix the other registers while we're at it?
I've attached a version of your diff with the extra registers' unwind info
added--- untested, unfortunately--- it'll also need a
sub ::cfi_restore { ::emit(.cfi_restore,@_); }
in x86gas.pl and the corresponding stub
On 28 Jun 2011, at 5:56 PM, Wim Lewis wrote:
Several of the other assembly files could use the same treatment as well:
md5-x86_64.pl uses %rbp to point to one of its arguments, sha1-586.pl uses
%ebp as a scratch register, etc.
It occurs to me that a lot of the CFI management could be done
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 22:20, Wim Lewis w...@omnigroup.com wrote:
On 27 Jun 2011, at 9:27 AM, yoni londner wrote:
As you know, on 32bit systems, when using EBP for anything other than
holding the stack base, it is very difficult to get reasonable backtrace.
this can be fixed if directing
On 28 Jun 2011, at 12:21 AM, yoni londner wrote:
1. I looked at a generated assembler from gcc. So I am not 100% sure what is
the 'most correct', but this is what gcc emits.
I was concerned that since this routine isn't compiler-generated it might be
doing something different from what
Hi,
As you know, on 32bit systems, when using EBP for anything other than
holding the stack base, it is very difficult to get reasonable backtrace.
this can be fixed if directing the compiler to add a debug record which
tells (at runtime) where we keep EBP value.
So, I added this record (FPO in
On 27 Jun 2011, at 9:27 AM, yoni londner wrote:
As you know, on 32bit systems, when using EBP for anything other than holding
the stack base, it is very difficult to get reasonable backtrace.
this can be fixed if directing the compiler to add a debug record which tells
(at runtime) where we
10 matches
Mail list logo
