This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Mohan Embar <gnustuff at thisiscool dot com>, Bryce McKinlay <bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ranjit Mathew <rmathew at hotmail dot com>
Date: 05 Dec 2003 12:57:42 -0700
Subject: Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
References: <16336.33219.875562.35801@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><T33ZGA3XSMRMDB212Z85MBC02VG.3fd09c59@p733><16336.40414.161334.50101@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> The run time is supposed to detect null pointer accesses in CNI code
Andrew> automagically; this works fine with proper signal unwinding, but not
Andrew> otherwise.  The change that will enable null pointer checking even in
Andrew> CNI code is not ABI compatible, and is such a disruptive change that I
Andrew> want to postpone it until after 3.4 branches.

I filed PR 13319 for this.  It is marked `[ABI]' like all the other
proposed parts of the big ABI change.

Tom

References:
- Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
  - From: Mohan Embar
- Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
  - From: Andrew Haley

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]