>> Hm, I am suspecting that nobody has actually tested whether >> backtrace() really works on NetBSD/powerpc... I'll write a >> simple test of that in C tomorrow. > > Yes, this looks more like dysfunctional backtrace(3). > > We have got an ATF test for this: > > tests/lib/libexecinfo/t_backtrace.c > > If it will work, it's worth to add a scenario that fails for ppc.
Hmm, that test seems to be working just fine, sigh! ambrosia: {6} ./t_backtrace backtrace_fmt_basic t_backtrace: WARNING: Running test cases without atf-run(1) is unsupported t_backtrace: WARNING: No isolation nor timeout control is being applied; you may get unexpected failures; see atf-test-case(4) got nptrs=19 ncalls=12 (min_frames: 4, max_frames: 9) backtrace is: #0: myfunc3 #1: myfunc2 #2: myfunc1 #3: myfunc1 #4: myfunc1 #5: myfunc1 #6: myfunc1 #7: myfunc1 #8: myfunc1 #9: myfunc1 #10: myfunc1 #11: myfunc1 #12: myfunc1 #13: myfunc1 #14: myfunc #15: atfu_backtrace_fmt_basic_body #16: atf_tc_run #17: atf_tp_run #18: atf_tp_main passed ambrosia: {7} pwd /usr/tests/lib/libexecinfo ambrosia: {8} > I don't see an ATF machine for powerpc, there shall be one available. > > http://releng.netbsd.org/test-results.html Mm, OK, doing the tests on netbsd-8 on this MacMini G4 should be fairly straight-forward. >> On the other hand, the backtrace gdb was able to provide >> decidedly looks incomplete -- the program's main function is not >> opendir() (!), and maybe this has something to do with it? > > This is a bug, it's really a signal trapmpoline. This needs to be fixed > in GDB.. it's on my TODO list. OK, good. >> It doesn't look like the SupportTests program is multi-threaded, >> although it is linked with -lpthread: > > It's common in the LLVM environment to link with everything that could > be useful.. like libm, librt, libpthread, libdl [for !NetBSD] etc. Mm, ok. - HÃ¥vard