[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libunwind] remote unwinding and dynamically-generated code
From: |
Todd L Miller |
Subject: |
Re: [libunwind] remote unwinding and dynamically-generated code |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:36:36 -0600 (CST) |
> Also, I'm not terribly fond of the "flags" name. How about calling
> it "busy", or at least "busy_flag"). I don't think it's a good idea
> to pretend we're supporting mutiple flags. If we did that, we would
> have to use atomic update instructions; I do not think that's worth
> the trouble.
I wasn't certain how much 'future-proofing' you wanted, and it
seemed kind of silly to dedicate a full 32 bits to a single flag.
However, your point about atomic updates is well taken, and I've changed
the header to suit (as well as the ordering problem you pointed out
earlier).
> - The typedef for the UNW_DYN_INFO_LIST_VERSIONs seems overkill to me.
Well, it probably is. :)
[snip]
> Code implementing backwards-compatibility uses open-coded
> constants, because it does not want to be subject to changes in the
> macros.
I must admit that I haven't the faintest idea what you mean here.
(What's "open-coded" mean? Why would a typedef be subject to changes in
macros? Or did you mean that if the code were to support old-style
dynamic info lists, it would do so by checking explicitly for '0' (and
'1'), rather than DYN_INFO_LIST_VERSION?)
I'm working on your other points.
- Todd
Message not available