From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20473 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2006 10:56:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 20465 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2006 10:56:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fra-del-01.spheriq.net (HELO fra-del-01.spheriq.net) (195.46.51.97) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:56:38 +0000 Received: from fra-out-03.spheriq.net (fra-out-03.spheriq.net [195.46.51.131]) by fra-del-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id k22AuD8N008911 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:56:13 GMT Received: from fra-cus-01.spheriq.net (fra-cus-01.spheriq.net [195.46.51.37]) by fra-out-03.spheriq.net with ESMTP id k22AuCAb021828 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:56:13 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by fra-cus-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id k22AuBJq009896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:56:12 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id EC2EFDA42; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:56:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.bri.st.com (mail1.bri.st.com [164.129.8.218]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 078404730B; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:59:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.15.13] (terrorhawk.bri.st.com [164.129.15.13]) by mail1.bri.st.com (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CHI02052 (AUTH stubbsa); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:55:57 GMT Message-ID: <4406CEB2.5000802@st.com> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew STUBBS User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: backtrace stop guard for threads callstacks References: <20060302012943.GK1579@adacore.com> <20060302031921.GA24107@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060302031921.GA24107@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O-Spoofed: Not Scanned X-O-General-Status: No X-O-Spam1-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Spam2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-URL-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus1-Status: No X-O-Virus2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus3-Status: No X-O-Virus4-Status: No X-O-Virus5-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Image-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Attach-Status: Not Scanned X-SpheriQ-Ver: 4.2.01 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/msg00049.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > FYI, this is discussed here about five times a year in one form or > another. For systems we control, the correct solution is not this at > all, but to add unwinding information or suitable prologues that > indicate the end of the stack. Almost every architecture has a > suitable sequence, and we have a recently-decided-upon DWARF convention > to represent it also. Yes, I started this same discussion last autumn. We finally decided that the Right Thing would be to do something to the library that creates the thread stack. But, while we are having ideas.... How about: set backtrace main-functions main;mytaskfunc;_start or perhaps: set backtrace add-main-function mytaskfunc so that the user can stop backtraces whereever is appropriate for their environment. Just a thought. Andrew