On 09/04/2012 06:08 PM, Bryce McKinlay wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 09/04/2012 05:32 PM, Bryce McKinlay wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Dehao Chen <de...@google.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> On 08/30/2012 08:20 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>>> Is the problem simply that the logic to >>>>>> scan the assembly code isn't present in the libgcj testsuite? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, exactly. >>>> >>>> For this case, I don't think that we want a testcase to rely on >>>> addr2line in the system. So how about that that we add a test when >>>> assembly scan is available in libgcj testsuit? >>> >>> Once Ian Lance Taylor's libbacktrace patch is integrated (see: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-08/msg00317.html), we'll be able to get >>> rid of the code that calls addr2line from libgcj. >> >> As I understand it, Ian Taylor's backtrace patch is intended for use in >> gcc development, and as he puts it "Since its use in GCC would >> be purely for GCC developers, it's not essential that it be fully >> portable." Not for gcj runtime. > > He's also planning to use it for libgo, and other gcc runtime libs > have indicated interest. It doesn't have to work on all platforms, and > I can't see how it would be any less portable than addr2line!
I certainly can. Maybe once it's shaken-down so it's at least as robust as what we have now it'll be OK. I suspect it hasn't had much testing with, for example, unwinding through signal handlers. Andrew.
