> On May 31, 2016, at 12:52 AM, Ravitheja Addepally via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > I posted this query a while ago, i still have no answers, I am > currently working on Bug 27687 (PrintStackTraces), so the reason for the > failure is the erroneous unwinding of the frames from the zeroth frame. The > error is not detected in AddOneMoreFrame, since it only checks for 2 more > frames, if it was checking more frames in AddOneMoreFrame, it would have > detected the error. Now my questions are -> > > -> is that is there any specific reason for only checking 2 frames instead > of more ?
The stepping machinery uses the unwinder on each stop to figure out whether it has stepped in or out, which is fairly performance sensitive, so we don't want AddOneMoreFrame to do more work than it has to. Jim > -> Why no make the EH CFI based unwinder the default one and make the > assembly the fallback ? > > Best Regards, > A Ravi Theja > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
