Re: RFC: stack trace generation

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>>Sounds reasonable.  We can't insist that in order for libgcj stack
>>traces to work we must use a specific debug info format.  However, if
>>all we lose on non-DWARF 2 platforms is line numbers/ source files I
>>can't see any big objection.
>>
>>One thing I should point out for lurkers: we're using DWARF 2 to mean
>>two different things here: DWARF 2 unwinder data and DWARF 2 debug
>>info.  If we can do everything except printStackTrace() with the
>>former, that's unlikely to cause problems.
>>
>>One other thing: as long as we stick to the unwinder library in libgcc
>>we'll be able to cope with platforms like ARM and IA-64, which have
>>their own ideas about unwinder info.
> 
> 
> This would also allow dropping "-fno-omit-frame-pointer",
> which can make a difference on register starved architectures...
> 

Arn't there two issues?

1) Generate the raw stack trace.

2) Make a pretty printout.

These patches deal with #2.

#1 is easily done where ever DWARF 2 unwinding is available (shameless
plug: libjava/sysdep/dwarf2-backtrace.cc).

David Daney.