24 Jan
2024
24 Jan
'24
7:46 p.m.
On Wed Jan 24 18:20:38 2024 +0000, Martin Storsjö wrote:
Thanks; that’s probably quite true - in that case we probably shouldn’t get rid of libunwind here, until we have a complete enough unwinder for the compact unwinding format - or until we have better knowledge on the situation (e.g. if we could conclude with some certainty that we don’t need to unwind through functions with such data - or if we could disable the compact unwinding format for the unixlibs; the amount of non-PE code that the unwinder needs to handle is pretty small these days). We are never unwinding Unix libs. libunwind is only used for .dll.so files, which don't exist on aarch64.
-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/4931#note_58869