From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32487 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2006 20:24:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 32478 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Aug 2006 20:24:32 -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; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:24:27 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GFcnR-00085Q-Ii; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc, frame] Add backtrace stop reasons Message-ID: <20060822202425.GA30970@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060819154646.GA25238@nevyn.them.org> <200608201438.k7KEcJho022644@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060820162821.GA20987@nevyn.them.org> <200608222009.k7MK9Vmu002926@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200608222009.k7MK9Vmu002926@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 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: 2006-08/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 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