From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12559 invoked by alias); 18 May 2006 17:36:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 12550 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2006 17:36:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (HELO e31.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.149) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 17:36:02 +0000 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4IHZlmj016960 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 13:35:47 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k4IHZlan159202 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 11:35:47 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k4IHZk7N009314 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 11:35:47 -0600 Received: from dufur.beaverton.ibm.com (dufur.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.22.20] (may be forged)) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4IHZjJg009213; Thu, 18 May 2006 11:35:45 -0600 Subject: Re: [RFC] Move the frame zero PC check earlier From: PAUL GILLIAM Reply-To: pgilliam@us.ibm.com To: Jim Blandy Cc: Andrew STUBBS , Joel Brobecker , Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <20060510180312.GA12606@nevyn.them.org> <200605130946.k4D9kZ2M001331@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060513151338.GB3721@nevyn.them.org> <200605131642.k4DGgiqa018273@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516204503.GC13210@nevyn.them.org> <200605162137.k4GLbZiS014187@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516221837.GA15617@nevyn.them.org> <1147815745.3672.163.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060517155729.GF27234@adacore.com> <446C3EB3.1040606@st.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1147969938.3672.168.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00401.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 09:53 -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: > Andrew STUBBS writes: > > Jim Blandy wrote: > >> For the record, at the top of this thread I said I thought it was > >> fine, too. I've run into these often enough due to deliberate > >> attempts by runtimes to terminate the stack that I think it outweighs > >> the (minor, to my mind) value of seeing a 0x00000000 frame that > >> indicates an actual error. > >> GDB should be honest with the user about what it finds, but I don't > >> think we can be a multi-platform debugger and be that picky about > >> confining each bit of logic to exactly the platforms that promise to > >> uphold it. > > > > How about adding a command: > > > > set backtrace terminate-on-zero-pc on|off > > > > and let the user decide. Set it to 'on' by default on the principle > > that, if they aren't aware of the possibility, users don't want to see > > zero frames they don't understand. > > > > Just a thought. > > Well, that would lift the burden of the decision from our shoulders > (that is, GDB developers', not restricted to the folks here) to the > users'. I think we're probably in a better position to make it. No, that lifts the burden of deciding for *all* users from our shoulders, allowing those users who understand the issues to override our decision. On the other hand, it would add one more user tweek that most users would not understand or care about. It's a hard call. I'd vote for the new command and classify it as obscure. -=# Paul #=-