On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 08:30 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:09:04AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > This is your opinion. I rarely need the full backtrace in a bug report, > > because it you can get one its generally something thats easily > > reproduced and I can just run it in gdb myself. When you need it is when > > something weird is happening and you have to rely on the bugreport only. > > This is sometimes doable even without debug info, I even wrote a blog > > post about this: > > > > http://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2005/08/26/the-art-of-decoding-backtraces-without-debug-info/ > > > > But, having the full symbol names for all libraries and apps in all > > backtraces I'll ever see in the future would help me immensely. Even if > > its "just an unwinder". > > But for that you really don't need the symtabs stored in the binaries/shared > libraries, you can just have the backtrace without symbols printed + print > relevant build-ids at the beginning, a script at any time can reconstruct > that into not just the symbol names, but also lineinfo. And the build-ids > will help even if you want to look at further details (.debug_info, source > files). Its true that that is all the information you need from the process/core. But you need to have the rest of the information availible *somewhere*, such as on a global retrace server or just having it locally in the minidebuginfo. The later is far more robust and simple. It lets you directly get a reasonable backtrace given *only* the actual binaries in the running process. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
