2013/8/16 Slávek Banko slavek.banko@axis.cz
On Friday 16 of August 2013 02:07:24 Slávek Banko wrote:
On Friday 16 of August 2013 02:01:26 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I created a patch and am compiling as I write. Here is the patch. Please review!
Slavek,
The patch did not cause any build failures. Hopefully the patch is actually correct too.
Now to test the crash patch....
Darrell
Good job. Just one mistake - was not included "ConfigureChecks.cmake".
Now
I test build on my local builder => I will soon approve it.
Slavek
A second mistake - ${BACKTRACE_LIBRARY} should be instead of bfd, not both. For me successfully tested builds for both variants - with and without backtrace handler.
However, there is still good objection from Fat-Zer... It would be good to find a consensus soon, because the current situation leads to FTBFS.
Slavek
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
Here is propoused patch which checks if demangle.h is present.
I consider the print_trace() and all backtrace_symbol.c as a temporary debug crutch. Am I wrong? Tim, what are benefits of your print_trace() comparing to e.g. kdBacktrace or generic backtrace()?