From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28570 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2012 17:26:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 28516 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2012 17:26:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:26:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q91HQNRF014346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:26:23 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-34.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.34]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q91HQJNo024772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:26:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:26:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Joshua Watt , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Option to disable frame checking Message-ID: <20121001172618.GA23158@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20121001172117.GG30746@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121001172117.GG30746@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:21:17 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Is it acceptable to make a patch that allows this check to be turned > > off (i.e. "set frame-inner-check off" or similar), or is there another > > method that is more acceptable? > > Knowing that the Go language makes extensive use of alternate stacks, > I think it's just better to remove the check altogether. I do not know about Go alternate stacks but the checks for example already supports gcc -fsplit-stack. More such features should be rather implemented than to drop UNWIND_INNER_ID. Could not be GDB taught about thue alternate stack? Looping backtraces are a pain for both interactive and automatic bugreporting, it is already a TODO item GDB should better handle f() { f(); } type stack overflows as it proven less GDB-savvy users fail to debug such issue in GDB. Thanks, Jan