bsdjhb added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38110#910526, @mstorsjo wrote:
> Just a heads up WRT this patch; we're discussing changing the size of > `unw_word_t` to match `uintptr_t` in https://reviews.llvm.org/D39365. Does > that break anything for your case? It shouldn't affect what's stored in the > Register class, only pointers in the unw_proc_info_t struct. Not sure which > patch will get completed/merged first though. Yes, I saw that. It will probably cause some breakage for the cursor size depending on which path (uint64_t always vs uintptr_t). I'm not quite sure which of those approaches is more correct to be honest. I also have an N32 patch in review but will wait until this one is finally committed before updating that further. https://reviews.llvm.org/D38110 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
