Re: [rfc, frame] Add backtrace stop reasons

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:25 -0400
> From: 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!

Heh, I wanted to give a *reasonable* example ;-).

> > 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!

Perhaps you should post that updated patch!

Mark