On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:00:29PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote: > Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:13:28PM -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > >> I'm not a fan at all. This API is really bad compared to what's provided by > >> libbacktrace, which is super simple. This also seem to require callbacks > >> that have "Linux" in the name. Why are we trying to get rid of > >> libbacktrace, and what's the schedule for this? > > > > we're getting rid of libunwind, which was merged after 1.14 and isn't > > available on e.g. RHEL and apparently not required either. as for > > libbacktrace - haven't dealt with it yet, so I can't comment much on it. > > > > schedule - asap, before the 1.15 release would be nice so we don't introduce > > a dependency that we don't need. > > Are you OK with the current conditional dependency on libunwind? We > could easily add a '--with-libunwind' and disable it by default so that > the build would be consistent independent of whether libunwind was > accidentally installed. > > Sorting this out before 1.15 seems like a good idea.
>From the discussion I gathered that libunwind is the best option for now until someone implements and external backtracer through fork() + exec(). So please ignore this patchset. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
