This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Archer project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Stack trace from core file without executable

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:19:00 +0200, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ray Ruvinskiy <> wrote:
> > frysk's fstack had a feature that I found quite useful: the ability to
> > extract (fairly accurate) stack traces from core files without needing the
> > executable that generated them.

> Assuming frysk stack trace looks like a chain of program counters,
> what do you use it for? You still need the original executable to
> tell you what these addresses are

The maintainers of OOo tell that they are interested only in such program
counters chain - no local variables, no parameters.  But the core file for
these programs is too big to be uploadable from the user.  And user even does
not have the big debuginfos installed to get the function names.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:58:25 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> FYI the currently used post-resolver for
> Sample resolve:
> ->

Even if you would get the full core file from a user it is commonly not enough
to fix a bug, in more complicated cases one usually needs a reproducer.

> In general, on x86_64 and ia64, for code compiled with any level of
> optimization (and without -fno-omit-frame-pointer) 'core' does not
> have enough info to obtain a stack trace -- you need unwind
> descriptors which are present in the executable.

I agree.  But still one can generate the backtrace anywhere else, just the
matching versions of binaries are required.  This is better achievable on
Fedora8+ kernels with the build-id signatures embedded in the core files for
the binary+libraries.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]