* Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Another idea to detect missing frames: for each return address on the stack, > > ensure there's a corresponding "call <func>" instruction immediately preceding > > the return location, where <func> matches what's on the stack. > > Hmm, interesting. > > I hope your plans include rewriting the current stack unwinder completely. The > thing in print_context_stack is (a) hard-to-understand and hard-to-modify crap > and (b) is called in a loop from another file using totally ridiculous > conventions. So we had several attempts at making it better, any further improvements (including radical rewrites) are more than welcome! The generalization between the various stack walking methods certainly didn't make things easier to read - we might want to eliminate that by using better primitives to iterate over the stack frame. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
