On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Does this seem like something we could usefully add to GCC? Does >> anybody see any big problems with it? > > Does it work without unwind tables? I suspect it doesn't as it's using > libgccs unwinder, so that would be a problem if we were to use it to > generally replace our current non-backtrace based means.
This implementation requires unwind tables. Since I wrote it primarily for use in GCC, and since C++ requires unwind tables, and for that matter so does the x86_64 ABI, I don't really see that as a major issue. In any case there is no reason to remove the current mechanisms. Ian
