Ok, fine.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Konstantin Serebryany > <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov >> <eugeni.stepa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany >>> <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:07 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >>>> >> I've applied your patch (with minor style and comment changes) >>>> >> upstream: >>>> >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=168356 >>>> >> I did not have any way to test it though. Also, gmail does something >>>> >> horrible with patches inlined in a message, so I might have missed >>>> >> something. >>>> > >>>> > Doing a quick peruse through your LLVM commit, I see you grabbed the >>>> > PopStackFrames() addition, but the asan_linux.cc changes do not include >>>> > the call to PopStackFrames() after the _Unwind_Backtrace() call. >>>> > Specifically, the following patch hunk: >>>> > >>>> >> _Unwind_Backtrace(Unwind_Trace, stack); >>>> >> > + // Pop off the two ASAN functions from the backtrace. >>>> >> > + stack->PopStackFrames(2); >>> >>> >>> I wonder if under some conditions we may get a different number of extra >>> frames (inlining comes to mind). What do you think of removing any number of >>> frames that belong to the runtime library - we have memory layout info for >>> that? >> >> Bad idea, imho. >> Hard to implement, slower to run (remember, this *is* a hotspot). >> The frames in question are in our run-time and we can fully control inlining. >> What is the current number of redundant frames on ARM? > > > And we can have output tests that verify that we remove the right > number of frames.
