From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15082 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2006 20:38:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 15074 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Aug 2006 20:38:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:38:29 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k7MKbs5M025463; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:37:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7MKbrj1002159; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:37:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k7MKbr0V014016; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:37:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:49:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200608222037.k7MKbr0V014016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060822202425.GA30970@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:25 -0400) Subject: Re: [rfc, frame] Add backtrace stop reasons References: <20060819154646.GA25238@nevyn.them.org> <200608201438.k7KEcJho022644@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060820162821.GA20987@nevyn.them.org> <200608222009.k7MK9Vmu002926@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060822202425.GA30970@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00167.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:24:25 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > 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