[RFR]: Stack frame symbolization

[Jean Christophe Beyler]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:14 PM Man Cao <manc at google.com> wrote:

> Looks good as well.
>
> > However, I wonder why we are doing our own bit manipulations and not
> using
> > a bitfield?  Any reason for that?
> I guess it might be due to the fact that bit field has some
> implementation-defined behaviors, and we want TSAN's data structures to
> have rock-solid exact number of bits.
>
>
How we learn nitty gritty details sometimes. This is a difference between
the C-norm and the C++ norm, which behave differently regarding bitfields.

LGTM,
Jc



> -Man
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:05 PM Jean Christophe Beyler <jcbeyler at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Arthur,
>>
>> Looks good  to me, as you said, we will only know when it gets used... :)
>>
>> However, I wonder why we are doing our own bit manipulations and not using
>> a bitfield? Any reason for that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jc
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:05 PM Arthur Eubanks <aeubanks at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Here's a first attempt at symbolizing stack frames. We'll have to wait
>> > until TSAN works before we can verify that this actually works...
>> >
>> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aeubanks/tsansymbolize/webrev.00
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jc
>>
>

-- 

Thanks,
Jc