On 5/2/2011 4:14 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Hi Carmelo, > Hi Thomas,
> I tested backtrace on a powerpc system (P4080 family) with > uClibc-0.9.31, and the test program mentioned in the backtrace man > page [1]. > > The good news is that it seems to work correctly. The raw pointers > returned by backtrace() are correct and complete. great ;-) > Note that, although the source code of libubacktrace mentions the need > for compiling with '-fexception', it is sufficient to add > '-funwind-tables'. The latter has the advantage of not changing > dynamic behavior (i.e. enabling exception code). I think it would be > good to modify the comment. > ok, I understand your point. I'll test it with -funwind-tables on my side, and check it. > Unfortunately, backtrace_symbols() is not yet ok. According to the > expected output of the example I took from [1], static functions > simply have no symbolic resolution in the glibc version; only a > pointer is shown. > > However, with the current uClibc / libgcc implementation, a symbolic > name *is* shown for static functions, but it is wrong. Referring to > the example code, the entry referring to myfunc2 is printed as > 'myfunc'. If you change the code and make myfunc static and myfunc2 > global, then all entries referring to myfunc are printed as 'myfunc2'. > This is problematic in my opinion. > > I haven't looked into detail into backtrace_symbols yet. I also don't > know whether the error is in libgcc or libubacktrace. Any thoughts are > appreciated. > I'll give a look asap. Really many thanks for your feedback and testing. > Best regards, > Thomas > > [1] http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/backtrace.3.html > Cheers, Carmelo > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 4/25/2011 10:02 AM, Tony Wu wrote: >>> Hi, Carmelo, >>> >>> If commit 7b5b79f is for generic libubacktrace implementation, then, I >>> think TARGET_sh dependency for UCLIBC_HAS_BACKTRACE should be removed >>> in extra/Configs/Config.in. >>> >>> Tony >> >> You're right. Pushed in master. >> >> Thanks, >> Carmelo >> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On 4/6/2011 8:47 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >>>>> Hi Carmelo, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> I'm finally back to work on uClibc. I'm preparing some patches to make >>>>>> backtrace available for all archs, asking you guys to test on your >>>>>> platforms. >>>>> >>>>> I should be able to test it on powerpc. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your patches... >>>>> Thomas >>>>> >>>> >>>> Pushed in master right now. Please let us to know. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Carmelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> uClibc mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> uClibc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc >> > _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
