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: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz>
Cc: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:28:25 -0800
Subject: Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
References: <200312050134.hB51YKEu021840@napali.hpl.hp.com> <00B9F2A0-26CA-11D8-AF21-003065F97F7C@mckinlay.net.nz>

On Dec 4, 2003, at 18:23, Bryce McKinlay wrote:

Hi David,

I have been working on a patch that revamps libgcj's stack tracing, using the libgcc unwinder. I should be able to post it this weekend.

One outstanding issue is what to do about Windows, which apparantly doesn't use the DWARF unwinder.

It is not just Windows, OpenBSD is the same way, but GCJ is not support there because the GC does not quite work with a.outb. In fact there are more targets that do not support DWARF unwinder than there are that do support it.


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
  - From: Cedric Berger

References:
- backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
  - From: David Mosberger
- Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
  - From: Bryce McKinlay

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