From: Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:28:51 -0600
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 23:19 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> The address violation detection seems to work properly and the only >> thing that seems to be left are some backtrace/unwind issues. These >> are perhaps similar to the unwind bits that the powerpc folks ran >> into. > > David, does the following patch (will have some fuzz since I removed > one ppc only hunk from the patch) fix your backtrace issue? I'll note > you'll have to add "|| defined(__sparc__)" to the #if ... or as > it's probably going to turn out, just replace the whole thing > with a "#if !defined(__i386__) && !defined(__x86_64__)". This patch works well but I have some unrelated sanitizer sparc issues to resolve before the testcase will pass properly. Feel free to submit this with the __sparc__ cpp test added, or the !x86 variant, at your discretion.
