From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17350 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2006 17:55:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 17339 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2006 17:55:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:55:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A23F48CE7F for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00587-01 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88D548CE7E for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id E7E2847E7F; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:55:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: backtrace stop guard for threads callstacks Message-ID: <20060302175520.GB1330@adacore.com> References: <20060302012943.GK1579@adacore.com> <20060302031921.GA24107@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060302031921.GA24107@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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: 2006-03/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 > FYI, this is discussed here about five times a year in one form or > another. Yes, I remember now. But ... > For systems we control, the correct solution is not this at > all, but to add unwinding information or suitable prologues that > indicate the end of the stack. Almost every architecture has a > suitable sequence, and we have a recently-decided-upon DWARF convention > to represent it also. I understand. But I also thought that it would be nice to avoid printing the frames that are relative to thread startup code, and start the backtrace at the function the code used in the pthread_create call for instance. I think that the user won't be interested in them most of the time. That was part of my motivation. No big deal, I'll solve the other issues the recommended way the next time I come across them. -- Joel