This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc, frame] Add backtrace stop reasons
> 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