From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28771 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2012 17:59:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 28763 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2012 17:59:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:59:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9281C7A77; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:59:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id laWxKKuMw74C; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:59:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954641C79CE; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:59:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 881ADC6DDC; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 19:59:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Joshua Watt , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Option to disable frame checking Message-ID: <20121001175908.GA16438@adacore.com> References: <20121001172117.GG30746@adacore.com> <20121001172618.GA23158@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121001172618.GA23158@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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/msg00009.txt.bz2 > I do not know about Go alternate stacks but the checks for example > already supports gcc -fsplit-stack. I think we're both talking about the same feature - I couldn't remember the exact technical term used for Go. > 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. Personally, I don't think tha the check and associated warning brings anything extra. Getting a cryptic warning about some frame being inner than another never really helped me more than getting a botched backtrace. On the other hand, determining that a frame fails that invariant should be relatively straightforward, thanks to the "info frame" command. Hence the suggest to toss the check. But if people prefer to keep the check, and have a technical way of handling this sort of issue, then why not. -- Joel