[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:29:59 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] setjmp: fix x86-64 longjmp argument
adjustment
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020, Rich Felker wrote:
> Thanks! This whole series looks good and I'm applying it now.
>
> Re: optimizing the tails, I wonder why they were ever written the way
> they were to begin with. At least the i386 one was written by me so
> there's nobody else to ask, but do you have any insight into what I
> might have been thinking?
No idea.
By the way, you should check if other 64-bit ports in musl exhibit
the same issue. The AArch64 port definitely does, for example.
Here's a standalone testcase, needs -O2 so test_lj passes its second
argument unchanged:
#include <setjmp.h>
static void test_lj(jmp_buf jb, long lv)
{
longjmp(jb, lv);
}
int main()
{
void (*volatile ptest)(jmp_buf, long) = 0;
jmp_buf jb;
int v = setjmp(jb);
ptest = ptest ? 0 : test_lj;
if (ptest) ptest(jb, 1l<<32);
return !v;
}
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
