Mark Wielaard <[email protected]> writes: > In the ltrace case it might just be enough to print > [...] in case of > any error to indicate we don't know whether or not there should be more > frames (beyond the -w <NR> limit). > >> I still wonder what your opinion is though. It seems as if >> dwfl_thread_getframes should return a different error number on line >> 436, but that ship has sailed. > > Yeah, but it is hard to know which one. Since there are various things > that can cause us getting in that error state. The stack could be > corrupted, missing .eh_frame, corrupted/bad CFI data, etc. And on a > modern up to date system it really should return success.
I meant returning e.g. -2 instead of -1 as a result, just to indicate that it unwound something, but had to give up. Your solution with "[...]" seems reasonable. Thanks, PM _______________________________________________ Ltrace-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
