Re: Concerns about SFrame viability for userspace stack walking

[Indu Bhagat]

On 11/5/25 11:51 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Indu Bhagat:
>
> > PLT stubs may use stack (push to stack). As per the document "A null
> > frame (MODE = 8) is the simplest possible frame, with no allocated
> > stack of either kind (hence no saved registers)".  So null frame can
> > be used for PLT only if the functions invoking the PLT stub were using
> > an RBP-based frame.  Isnt it ?
>
> I think I said this before, but I don't think new toolchain features
> need to support lazy binding.  Without lazy bindings, the PLT stubs do
> not change the stack pointer or frame pointer and just make a tail call.
>
> Do you see a need for continued support of lazy binding?

(Yes, you did mention this before in another thread on Binutils.)

My thinking has been: some linker emulations default to lazy (I guess 
the reason is changing the default is difficult).  So, users may end up 
continuing with lazy bindings unknowingly ?

But I guess not designing new toolchain features to support lazy binding 
seems reasonable.

Thanks