This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: Stack trace from core file without executable
- From: "Paul Pluzhnikov" <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
- To: "Jan Kratochvil" <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Ray Ruvinskiy" <rruvinsk at sybase dot com>, archer at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 08:12:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: Stack trace from core file without executable
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta;t=1224429161; bh=dzmcP6GcBSqQv0Rfx6QtMyc8mFE=;h=DomainKey-Signature:Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:Cc: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Disposition:References; b=HziIETE/bdSAg8pZf6wkbAahj5A4Qm862yyTnll8QbJgtCzD1jc34swV9rPthM5ycReQwQeEzZbonf++cc2GWg==
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns;h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;b=YaixiMaf83mY4xTUuMLqndP5wpQlVMHvLWh3jsDpKsLj65qIUXBkF0BSh9f3jIs+tZcK2dqYT7y8kkiibAjCVw==
- References: <84F62FF9-ED8B-40D3-9C2C-384E59DE955F@sybase.com> <email@example.com> <20081019081906.GA26616@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Jan Kratochvil
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:19:00 +0200, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
>> 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.
So what stops them from either
- asking the user to run 'gdb -ex "where" OOo core', or
- doing the same automatically as part of their crash collection?
>> 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.
Generate the backtrace from what?
You need the binary and the core *together*. If you do not transfer core
from end-user system, then you have to generate backtrace on that system,
don't you? I don't see how build-id helps in that case. What did I miss?