On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thellst...@vmware.com> > wrote: >> Hi, Rob, >> >> On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote: >>> It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86 >>> and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrace support in the first >>> place. If available, use libunwind instead. The backtrace format is >>> based on what xserver and weston use, since it is nice not to have to >>> figure out a different format. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >> Did you consider glibc "backtrace()", I think it's also available on ARM... > I had not.. although xserver and weston are already using libunwind. > I'm not sure about portability of libunwind to other libc > implementations (but I guess it is at least not worse than using a > glibc specific API). > > I suppose we could always add a fallback to backtrace(). > >> Also is the output format the same as before, or at least compatible with >> gallium/tools/addr2line.sh? > quite possibly not.. I chose to align to the format that xserver and > weston was already using. Otoh, not sure if you would need to use > addr2line.sh since it already decodes things to human readable > fxn/file names. > > BR, > -R
backtrace() (or the homebrew i386 implementation) + addr2line.sh gives you both function name, source file and line number, which IMO is pretty useful. I'll give the new format a shot. Perhaps if needed we could have a config option to choose the method. I guess this is mostly used in DEBUG builds anyway, so a developer can choose the desired method... /Thomas > >> Thanks, >> Thomas >> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
