With or without cross-jumping, when the developer gets a
report from a user that "the program died with an abort", he or she has to
debug from scratch, only to find out in many cases that it's a known bug,
already fixed in CVS for the next release, information that would have
been revealed immediately by the output of fancy_abort.
I think this is more true in some programs than in others. For
instance, it may be very true for GCC. In Emacs, when a bug is
already fixed, either we can tell this from the circumstances reported
(what commands the user typed, etc.), or there's simply no way to
tell. Most of the bugs, most of the time, are reported by pretesters,
and they do know how to send useful bug reports and to run GDB.
However, the idea that users could search for previous bug reports is
new to me. That might be an additional reason for using fancy_abort.
Nonetheless, GCC may as well still stop cross-jumping abort calls.
There's nothing to lose, and it will be useful for those programs
that call abort.
