Mark Wielaard <m...@redhat.com> writes: >> Here you rely on the fact that DWARF_CB_ABORT is > 0, which is not >> obvious (though likely always true). But dwfl_getthread_frames doesn't >> care about particular value returned from the callback as long as it's >> non-zero, so why not change the DWARF_CB_ABORT above to 1? > > Done and added a comment to frame_callback explaining the function > return values -1, 0, 1.
Awesome. > +AC_CHECK_LIB([dw], [dwfl_getthread_frames], [have_libdw_dwfl_frames=yes]) > + AC_SUBST(libdw_LIBS) > + AC_DEFINE([HAVE_LIBDW], [1], [we have elfutils libdw]) > + LDFLAGS="${saved_LDFLAGS}" This is all unconditional and leads to build errors on systems without suitable elfutils. Should there be something like this? @@ -150,9 +150,11 @@ dnl And whether libdw.so provides the unwinding functions. saved_LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} ${AM_LDFLAGS}" AC_CHECK_LIB([dw], [dwfl_getthread_frames], [have_libdw_dwfl_frames=yes]) +if test x"$have_libdw_dwfl_frames" = xyes; then AC_SUBST(libdw_LIBS) AC_DEFINE([HAVE_LIBDW], [1], [we have elfutils libdw]) LDFLAGS="${saved_LDFLAGS}" +fi AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to use elfutils libdwfl unwinding support]) case "${enable_elfutils}" in (yes|maybe) Thanks, PM _______________________________________________ Ltrace-devel mailing list Ltrace-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel