This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 23, 2023. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
[x86/Linux] Fix EnclosingClauseCallerSP #9607
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1930,12 +1930,12 @@ CLRUnwindStatus ExceptionTracker::ProcessOSExceptionNotification( | |
| // DispatcherContext->EstablisherFrame's value | ||
| // represents the CallerSP of the current frame. | ||
| UINT_PTR EnclosingClauseCallerSP = (UINT_PTR)pDispatcherContext->EstablisherFrame; | ||
| #elif defined(_TARGET_AMD64_) | ||
| // Extract the CallerSP from RegDisplay on AMD64 | ||
| #elif defined(_TARGET_AMD64_) || defined(_TARGET_X86_) | ||
| // Extract the CallerSP from RegDisplay on AMD64 and x86 | ||
| REGDISPLAY *pRD = cfThisFrame.GetRegisterSet(); | ||
| _ASSERTE(pRD->IsCallerContextValid || pRD->IsCallerSPValid); | ||
| UINT_PTR EnclosingClauseCallerSP = (UINT_PTR)GetSP(pRD->pCallerContext); | ||
| #else // !_ARM_ && !_AMD64_ && !_ARM64_ | ||
| #else // !_ARM_ && !_AMD64_ && !_ARM64_ && !_X86_ | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. A nit - can you please fix the comment to reflect the real define names ( |
||
| PORTABILITY_ASSERT("ExceptionTracker::ProcessOSExceptionNotification"); | ||
| UINT_PTR EnclosingClauseCallerSP = NULL; | ||
| #endif // defined(_TARGET_ARM_) || defined(_TARGET_ARM64_) | ||
|
|
||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure if we want to use the ARM or AMD64 way for x86 - did we already make a choice in this matter? I
If we follow the amd64 way, then we also need to fix the code here:
https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/src/vm/exceptionhandling.cpp#L2843-L2849
and here:
https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/src/vm/exceptionhandling.cpp#L3109-L3115
(and if not, we should modify the comments at those places to mention x86).