On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 01:23 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > > Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the > > > > stack where the program crashed. > > > > > > Is this for inside OpenOCD? If so, I'd rather just expect folk > > > to run inside GDB. Either they're running natively and should > > > never see SEGV ... or they should be able to fire up GDB to get > > > this data (and likely more). > > > > > > > Not everyone wants to run GDB, and not all segfaults can be predicted. > > Any developer who's not willing to run GDB to catch a fault ... > take them out back behind the woodshed and "bugfix" them! ;)
If they _can_ catch it, sure. However, you're now talking about doing harm to the messengers. That's highly counterproductive. Asking someone to do extra work that could have been avoided is crap attitude. > No end user should ever see segfaults, or any other flavor of > rude/unexpected exit. If they see one that's quite a major > bug in the code. I reiterate my principle point: heisenbugs. The code is not yet pretty enough for me to feel that this handler will never be exercised in unpredictable contexts, nor do I feel our processes have yet reached a point where we can prevent adding such triggers in the future. --Z _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
