http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |samsonov at google dot com
--- Comment #13 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Why don't you use libbacktrace for that? It is not GPL, so Apple and other
I *think* we evaluated libbacktrace over 2 years ago and
discarded for some technical reason. Or was this something else?
Alexey?
We may want to re-evaluate it, but OTOH llvm-symbolizer works fine for us
already.
The symbolizer is pluggable so we may use another one in gcc.
> GPL haters can't complain, maintained by Google, and IMHO it is far better
> to just use existing code base for that rather than writing yet another
> DWARF parser.
*We* are not writing yet another parser, we are reusing the code used by lldb.
> Especially if you are writing it as part of llvm, it will unlikely handle
> all the DWARF GNU extensions needed to symbolize GCC code.
> Sure, there is work to be done on libbacktrace to handle some still
> unhandled extensions (e.g. DWZ produced extensions), but if you use
> libbacktrace, that can be done just in one spot, otherwise it will need to
> be written two times.
