From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18095 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2006 17:58:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 18073 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2006 17:58:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:58:00 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FEs3q-0003OP-6p; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:57:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: backtrace stop guard for threads callstacks Message-ID: <20060302175758.GA13025@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060302012943.GK1579@adacore.com> <20060302031921.GA24107@nevyn.them.org> <20060302175520.GB1330@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060302175520.GB1330@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i 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: 2006-03/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:55:20AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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. Oh - actually stop the backtrace _before_ the library instead of _in_ it? I'm not sure I agree; while the user may not be interested in the library functions, you can call thread startup functions as normal functions also; having backtraces stop without a clear indication of why would be a little confusing too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18100 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2006 17:58:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 18074 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2006 17:58:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:58:00 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FEs3q-0003OP-6p; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:57:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: backtrace stop guard for threads callstacks Message-ID: <20060302175758.GA13025@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060302012943.GK1579@adacore.com> <20060302031921.GA24107@nevyn.them.org> <20060302175520.GB1330@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060302175520.GB1330@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i 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: 2006-03/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20060302183600.7md28kjYQQrwE0J3LzEAtFCgNdKOUxvT4AVhSeuDyQg@z> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:55:20AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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. Oh - actually stop the backtrace _before_ the library instead of _in_ it? I'm not sure I agree; while the user may not be interested in the library functions, you can call thread startup functions as normal functions also; having backtraces stop without a clear indication of why would be a little confusing too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery