On 31.10.17 22:36, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, Andreas Tobler wrote: >> Do we, FreeBSD'ers, want to have gcc unwind support on older than >> FreeBSD 9.3 releases? I think the gcc folks do not care, but we are the >> ones who might have an need for such a support? >> _at_Gerald, do you have an opinion? > > Yes. No. :-) > > Those possibly still stuck on obsolete versions of FreeBSD don't > need/want fancy new compilers and GCC 4.9 is still available for > use and does not exhibit this issue, correct? (If it does, nobody > reported any problems.) It is limited to gcc >=5, gcc-4.9 does not have the MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR defined. >> I can 'ifdef' the new code and in the 'else' case we fall back to >> the already existing path. > > If it's "cheap", that might be nice. Attached, the test is running on gcc trunk and gcc-6. gcc-6 is the last one with java support and there we have quite extensive test cases which really test for this MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR macro. These test cases, Throw_2 and co do pass. So I think the new bits should be fine. Also some coming asan test cases do pass with this addition too. > Thanks to the three of you - Tijl, Konstantin, and Andreas! Gruss, Andreas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:13 UTC