Re: backtrace support

[Vincent Guffens]

> I have the idea that another array for the symbols is not required.  I
> think we can use one common table.  The symbol name and symbol address
> are already in there.  The hard thing is would getting the size,
> perhaps we could leave that open and fill it in with a function, or
> can we use a ld/gcc feature to do that?  This will make the backtrace
> code simpler and it saves memory.  Do you think that is somehow
> possible?

This is true, another list of symbols is not required for this backtrace 
support but it makes the implementation a lot less intrusive. It would 
be possible to use some #ifdef here and there around the structures that 
are used already to add a field for the symbol size but it would not be 
very nice. If you turn the debug flag off, the code comes back to the 
original so I thought it would not be a problem.

However, I found using a simple example that using -O2 still allows for 
using the frame pointer. This is to be verified but if it turns to be 
usable, than maybe using the --enable-debug will be less a problem and 
more popular so it would then be wise not to have the kernel symbol list 
twice.  What do you think ?

To correct the rest, I think I will read the GCS in detail.

--
                                Vincent Guffens
                                PhD Student UCL/CESAME
                                tel:   +32 10 47 80 30
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
"Don't bother us with politics," respond those who don't want to learn.
                -- Richard M. Stallman