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, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<> wrote:
> 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?

Paul Pluzhnikov

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