On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 08:35:32 +1100, matthew green wrote: > Valery Ushakov writes: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 01:19:31 +0000, Sevan Janiyan wrote: > > > > > > I might/would suggest > > > > > > > > OPTIONS DDB_ONPANIC=2 > > > > > > clear, any reason not to have this as a default? (I'm going to sleep on > > > it) > > > > As someone has already mentioned upthread, because printing a > > backtrace might cause another panic, so the default was selected to be > > on the safe(r) side. At least that's what I recall. > > i don't think this is the case. > > the builtin stack trace code is fault-tolerant. if it > faults, it will not re-try and you'll get a db> prompt.
My memory is hazy. I do have (for more than a decade it seems) a local change in db_trap() that adds db_recover around db_print_loc_and_inst() call, but I think that was to protect from fat fingers in ddb (hpcsh keyboard is tiny :). -uwe
