When unwind instruction is 0xb2,the subsequent instructions
are uleb128 bytes.
For now,it uses only the first uleb128 byte in code.
For vsp increments of 0x204~0x400,use one uleb128 byte like below:
0xc06a00e4 <unwind_test_work>: 0x80b27fac
Compact model index: 0
0xb2 0x7f vsp = vsp + 1024
0xac pop {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r14}
For vsp increments larger than 0x400,use two uleb128 bytes like below:
0xc06a00e4 <unwind_test_work>: @0xc0cc9e0c
Compact model index: 1
0xb2 0x81 0x01 vsp = vsp + 1032
0xac pop {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r14}
The unwind works well since the decoded uleb128 byte is also 0x81.
For vsp increments larger than 0x600,use two uleb128 bytes like below:
0xc06a00e4 <unwind_test_work>: @0xc0cc9e0c
Compact model index: 1
0xb2 0x81 0x02 vsp = vsp + 1544
0xac pop {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r14}
In this case,the decoded uleb128 result is 0x101(vsp=0x204+(0x101<<2)).
While the uleb128 used in code is 0x81(vsp=0x204+(0x81<<2)).
The unwind aborts at this frame since it gets incorrect vsp.
To fix this, add uleb128 decode to cover all the above case.
Signed-off-by: chao an <anchao@xiaomi.com>
b52070a70e