On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 17:58, François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Looks perfect to me, thanks.
OK thanks, it's pushed to trunk now. > > On 06/12/22 22:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 18:00, François Dumont <frs.dum...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 30/11/22 14:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 11:57, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 11:54, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 06:04, François Dumont via Libstdc++ > >>>>> <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>>>>> Good catch, then we also need this patch. > >>>>> Is it worth printing an error? If we can't show the backtrace because > >>>>> of an error, we can just print nothing there. > >> No strong opinion on that but if we do not print anything the output > >> will be: > >> > >> Backtrace: > >> > >> Error: ... > >> > >> I just considered that it did not cost much to report the issue to the > >> user that defined _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE and so is expecting a backtrace. > >> > >> Maybe printing "Backtrace:\n" could be done in the normal callback > >> leaving the user with the feeling that _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_BACKTRACE does not > >> work. > > OK, how's this? > > > > Tested x86_64-linux. > >
