From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752066AbaEFRB4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2014 13:01:56 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:46575 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750834AbaEFRBy (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2014 13:01:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:00:39 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Jean Pihet Cc: Jiri Olsa , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Corey Ashford , Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Paul Mackerras , Peter Zijlstra , David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64 Message-ID: <20140506170039.GB13677@arm.com> References: <1399391733-11927-1-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org> <1399391733-11927-4-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1399391733-11927-4-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jean, On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:55:33PM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote: > Adding libdw DWARF post unwind support, which is part > of elfutils-devel/libdw-dev package from version 0.158. > > Note: the libdw code needs some support for dwarf unwinding > on ARM64, this code is submitted seperately on the elfutils > ML. > > The new code is contained in unwin-libdw.c object, and > implements unwind__get_entries unwind interface function. Are you planning to implement support for 32-bit ARM too? If so, we'll need compat handling here again (your favourite!). > +bool libdw__arch_set_initial_registers(Dwfl_Thread *thread, void *arg) > +{ > + struct unwind_info *ui = arg; > + struct regs_dump *user_regs = &ui->sample->user_regs; > + Dwarf_Word dwarf_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX]; Shouldn't this be PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX - 1? Will