* Dave Anderson [2008-05-14 10:11]: > Bernhard Walle wrote: > > > > * Dave Anderson [2008-05-14 08:56]: > >> Thanks for digging into this. I agree with you on all counts. > >> > >> One final question: does the remaining call to __builtin_return_address(0) > >> in tools.c:getbuf() fail in your configuration as well? > > > > Yes. __builtin_return_address(0) works in all configurations and is > > also guaranteed to work with gcc. Only __builtin_return_address(n) with > > n > 0 makes problems when the frame pointer is omitted (which is the > > default with -O2). > > > > I'm confused -- you say it fails in your configuration, but then say that > passing an argument of 0 (like getbuf() does) works in all configurations. Sorry, the 'yes' was wrong. I meant 'no'. :) Bernhard -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
