Maybe this last patch that has been out for a while.
Here it is again rebased as some symbols have been added since my last
proposal.
François
On 14/10/20 6:10 pm, François Dumont wrote:
After further testing this version was bugged because ld considered
that __create_backtrace/__render_back
After further testing this version was bugged because ld considered that
__create_backtrace/__render_backtrace symbols existed several times in
the different linked .o.
I tried making those inline but it failed, __render_backtrace was not
substituted anymore, only __create_backtrace was.
The
I eventually consider your last remark about using weak symbols to
inject libbacktrace calls when _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE is defined.
libstdc++: [_GLIBCXX_DEBUG] Integrate libbacktrace
Add _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE macro to ask for a backtrace on
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
assertions using
Here is a new proposal which I think take into account all your remarks.
I discovered the great "%.*s" printf format so I was able to do some
cleanup on the function name without any allocation.
I also agree that counting the '>' or '<' is not reliable so I remove
this and limit the cleanup t
I forgot to comment on the chosen behavior of _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE.
So, if the user define it, it means that he has install libbacktrace on
its system. However we silently ignore it if libbacktrace is eventually
not supported. I think it is the simplest thing to do. I am not
convinced by t
On 06/06/19 22:33 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Here is what I come up with.
Regarding allocation in print_function I would also prefer to avoid
it. But this patch also aim at creating a backtrace_state object in
case of UB so the alloc is perhaps not so important. I can't use
string_view as
Here is what I come up with.
Regarding allocation in print_function I would also prefer to avoid it.
But this patch also aim at creating a backtrace_state object in case of
UB so the alloc is perhaps not so important. I can't use string_view as
I need to modify it to display only a part of it
On 23/05/19 07:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
So here what I come up with.
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE controls the feature. If the user define
it and there is a detectable issue with libbacktrace then I generate a
compilation error. I want to avoid users defining it but having no
On 23/05/19 07:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
So here what I come up with.
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE controls the feature. If the user define
it and there is a detectable issue with libbacktrace then I generate a
compilation error. I want to avoid users defining it but having no
On 29/05/19 19:45 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 5/29/19 12:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/05/19 07:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
So here what I come up with.
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE controls the feature. If the user
define
Thanks for making this opt-in.
it and there
On 5/29/19 12:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/05/19 07:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
So here what I come up with.
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE controls the feature. If the user define
Thanks for making this opt-in.
it and there is a detectable issue with libbacktrace then I g
On 23/05/19 07:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
So here what I come up with.
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE controls the feature. If the user define
Thanks for making this opt-in.
it and there is a detectable issue with libbacktrace then I generate a
compilation error. I want to avoid
Hi
So here what I come up with.
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE controls the feature. If the user define
it and there is a detectable issue with libbacktrace then I generate a
compilation error. I want to avoid users defining it but having no
backtrace in the end in the debug assertion.
On 12/21/18 10:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/12/18 22:47 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 22:35, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> I also explcitely define BACKTRACE_SUPPORTED to 0 to make sure
>libstdc++ has no libbacktrace dependency after usual build.
I'm concerned
On 21/12/18 22:47 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 22:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>I also explcitely define BACKTRACE_SUPPORTED to 0 to make sure
>libstdc++ has no libbacktrace dependency after usual build.
I'm concerned about the requirement to link to libbacktrace
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 22:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >I also explcitely define BACKTRACE_SUPPORTED to 0 to make sure
> >libstdc++ has no libbacktrace dependency after usual build.
> I'm concerned about the requirement to link to libbacktrace
> explicitly (which will break existing makefiles
On 11/12/18 00:08 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the integration of libbacktrace to provide the backtrace
on _GLIBCXX_DEBUG assertions.
I decided to integrate it without impacting the build scripts.
Users just need to install libbacktrace and once done _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
will
Hi
Here is the integration of libbacktrace to provide the backtrace on
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG assertions.
I decided to integrate it without impacting the build scripts.
Users just need to install libbacktrace and once done _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
will look for it and start using it if supported. The
18 matches
Mail list logo
