> > > > > > So, where should a solution come from? Where in the software/hardware > > > chain would a change be needed to make it work properly? > > > > For *nix: prt/crt0, there is a xorl %ebp,%ebp But there might be code > > that relies on this (main program's parent's frame being nil) > > (Continuing the thread from the fpc-pascal list on fpc-devel.) > > But why then is a stack trace generated for the unhandled assert exception > and not for the unhandled access violation (under Linux 386)?
The first is a called procedure, the other an exception handler I guess (Peter already hinted at that). > Under Mac OS X (Darwin), I do get stack traces in both cases. However, > in spite of compiling with -gl, I don't get line numbers in either case. > What is the cause for that? I don't know, but FPC/Darwin's startup mechanisms are afaik a bit different due to the mandatory libc use on Darwin. Linux and FreeBSD are by default still free of libc. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
