* Szabolcs Nagy:
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> index cced19d2018..0fd32a22599 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> On some machines it may be impossible to determine the return address of
> any function other than the current one; in such cases, or when the top
> +of the stack has been reached, this function returns an unspecified
> +value.
Can it crash as well? But that's a pre-existing issue with the wording.
> Additional post-processing of the returned value may be needed, see
> @code{__builtin_extract_return_addr}.
>
> +The stored representation of the return address in memory may be different
> +from the address returned by @code{__builtin_return_address}. For example
> +on AArch64 the stored address may be mangled with return address signing.
> +
> Calling this function with a nonzero argument can have unpredictable
> effects, including crashing the calling program. As a result, calls
> that are considered unsafe are diagnosed when the @option{-Wframe-address}
> option is in effect. Such calls should only be made in debugging
> situations.
> +
> +On targets where code addresses are representable as @code{void *},
> +@smallexample
> +void *addr = __builtin_extract_return_addr (__builtin_return_address (0))
> +@end smallexample
> +gives the code address where the current function would return. For example
> +such address may be used with @code{dladdr} or other interfaces that work
> +with code addresses.
> @end deftypefn
The change looks reasonable to me. It is worded in such a way that it
covers architectures which use function descriptors.
Thanks,
Florian
