On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> libunwind is not needed since there is already a dwarf2 based unwinder > that is accessible in libgcc already. Last I checked, libgcc dwarf handling code called malloc, and thus wasn't suitable when you want to instrument malloc *itself* to collect stack traces, nor for SIGPROF profiling. Is libgcc dwarf code async-signal safe now? If not, will it ever be? > I don't know why people still > promote libunwind when libgcc already has similar facilities. Because these facilities are not (or at least were not in the recent past) suitable for the unwinder requirements that people have? Thanks, -- Paul Pluzhnikov
