On Oct 20, 10 03:14:31 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > I think this is something X could benefit from (especially for getting > > better bug reports from users). Would this reasonable to commit? > > I'm torn. On one hand, glibc's backtrace() is a sad joke, and I'd love > to see better debug info. On the other hand, this seems like exactly > the kind of 'let's work around our deficient OS' crap that we've spent > the last six years deleting.
I think being able to call an external script doesn't exactly fit into the same category. Though it's close. Issue is that creating a reasonable backtrace is a complex task, and I doubt you'll find much love in suggesting that this should be done by glibc... ;-) > Perhaps you could write the one coredump handler to rule them all (i.e. > have the kernel invoke the script when a segfault is hit, not out of X's > signal handler), and get that shipped everywhere instead? :) *That* would probably a great thing. Out of my league ATM, though, would take more time to dig into the code than I can reasonably spare. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[email protected]> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ [email protected] Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
