This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch,libgfortran,toplevel] Use libbacktrace in libgfortran
- From: Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist dot janne at gmail dot com>
- To: FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:59:04 +0300
- Subject: Re: [patch,libgfortran,toplevel] Use libbacktrace in libgfortran
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFULd4aBn364WB5_Q0TewDauB5ySacbCeL=5J3QHO=uvQwQMCA at mail dot gmail dot com> <DED6598E-A106-4BBE-9943-575D1489FECF at gmail dot com>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:18 PM, FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Use libbacktrace (instead of our own unwind-based code) to display backtraces from libgfortran
>>> upon error or user request.
>>>
>>> 1. In toplevel Makefile.def, make libgfortran depend on libbacktrace (needs global reviewer
>>> approval)
>>> 2. In gcc/fortran/config-lang.in, add libbacktrace to target_libs
>>> 3. In libgfortran, we remove our own code and substitute calls to libbacktrace
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (which has full libbacktrace support) and
>>> x86_64-apple-darwin14 (which has minimal libbacktrace support). OK to commit to trunk?
>>
>> backtrace.ChangeLog is unreadable for me â
>
> Sending again, this time with .txt extension, hoping this makes it go through OK.
Awesome! Looks good. I only have one small bikeshed request: Can you
make the output format match the existing code?
(As there seems to be no GNU (or otherwise) standard how backtraces
should look, in order to minimize user confusion I made the current
code produce output matching gdb backtraces as close as seemed
reasonable.)
Ok with that change.
--
Janne Blomqvist