Re: [rfc, frame] Add backtrace stop reasons

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 10:09:31PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> But you're cheating by choosing an example from a register-starved
> architecture ;-)  Here's the output on 64-bit SPARC:

Well yeah :-)

> It's not yet a screenful, but already getting close.  I think I've
> seen even worse on 64-bit MIPS, but indeed it is not too bad yet.

I doubt it; SPARC64 tends to have more saved registers, because of the
large windows, than MIPS.  I wonder how bad IA64 is though!

> But I guess I'd really wanted to point out that we should be careful
> about printing out too much information.  On the other hand we would
> only print the additionol info for the last frame on the chain.  It's
> my feeling though that "Stops backtrace" does not indicate a property
> of the frame like the other things we print.  But printing something
> like "Outermost frame: unwinding indicated no return address".  sounds
> better to me.

Ooh, that's a good point.  I've changed the message in my copies of the
patch; I like yours much better!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery