backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:39:52 +1300, Bryce McKinlay <bryce@mckinlay.net.nz> said:

  Bryce> But on Windows, breaking stack traces would be a regression
  Bryce> because they do partially work there, although the current
  Bryce> implementation is pretty bogus when it comes to the
  Bryce> calling-classloader checks etc.

Is this win32.cc:backtrace()?  If so, I think all it would take is to
build the latest libunwind on Windows/x86.  The current libunwind
release does support x86 via frame-chain-based stack-traces (no,
that's not the final solution, but it's certainly good enough for
_Unwind_Backtrace() as long as the frame-chain is being maintained).
This wouldn't buy you much at the moment, but it would be a benefit if
the libunwind implementation for Windows/x86 is improved over time.

	--david