I ended up reliably triggering this when applying part 2 from bug 686805, but I suspect this may happen under some circumstances, which effectively makes us miss crash reports. It appears this was fixed upstream: http://codereview.chromium.org/8165010

In fact, it happens after the minidump is written, not before, but it'd still be better to do the right thing here.

I really don't feel confident reviewing this. Can you get someone who actually understands ARM assembly to review?

Also, upstream for this file is: http://code.google.com/p/linux-syscall-support/

Comment on attachment 591726 [details] [diff] [review] Fix sys_clone() on ARM to work reliably in Thumb-2 Review of attachment 591726 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: toolkit/crashreporter/google-breakpad/src/common/linux/linux_syscall_support.h @@ +2196,5 @@ > + */ > + #ifdef __thumb2__ > + "ldr r7,[sp]\n" > + "blx r7\n" > + #else Yep, this is fine. I'd normally argue for using BLX in the ARM case too (except on ARMv4T, where it doesn't exist), but this doesn't exactly look like performance-critical code. I'd probably make it "__thumb2__ || !__armv4t__" (or whatever the macro is called), but it's up to you.

Can you upload a patch against the linux-syscall-support repo to codereview.chromium.org and ask for review from markus@chromium.org ?

(In reply to Ted Mielczarek [:ted, :luser] from comment #7) > Can you upload a patch against the linux-syscall-support repo to > codereview.chromium.org and ask for review from markus@chromium.org ? The patch comes from there.