On 18/01/11 17:21, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: >> On 12/01/11 17:50, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: >>> I noticed that almost exactly a year ago Carmelo Amoroso posted >> stating >>> that he hoped to do more work on backtrace. After looking at >>> libubactrace/sh/backtrace.c, I'm confused as to why this is platform >>> dependant code. The code appears to ONLY use library calls that >> should >>> be available on _any_ platform. I have copied the code to a mips >>> subdirectory and am testing at the moment, but I'm curious as to > what >>> potential problems I'll find; due to my wealth of knowledge of >> backtrace >>> (that would be 0) I'm sure I don't know why this would not work. >>> >>> If you have any information, please enlighten me! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Andy >> >> Hi Andy, >> likely you are right and the current sh implementation can be widely >> used. >> Let me a few time to review this code. >> In the meanwhile you're feedback with your try n mips would be > helpful. > > It failed. The message was that I needed to have mips specific code to > include backtrace support.
Sure, I've added the #error directive. Could you try copying the backtrace.c from the sh directory in the root and give it a try ? Ensure that the backtrace.c is built with -fexception (see Makefile.arch in the sh folder) > I worked around the issue by rolling back > the version of the package I was attempting to use. If I get time I'll > attempt it again. > > Andy > I know have an ARM target to use, I'll try to test the sh implementation (simply based on dwarf2) to see if it can be exported to all archs. Cheers, Carmelo _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
