But they don't. instead they have memory addresses and the function name. so
I've been thinking - suppose I have a binary with debugging information, and
the source code and a stack trace - shouldn't I be able to extrapolate from
it in what line in the code each frame in the stack is ?
Note:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 06:24:02PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
But they don't. instead they have memory addresses and the function name. so
I've been thinking - suppose I have a binary with debugging information, and
the source code and a stack trace - shouldn't I be able to extrapolate from
-Original Message-
From: Oded Arbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But they don't. instead they have memory addresses and the function name. so
I've been thinking - suppose I have a binary with debugging information, and
the source code and a stack trace - shouldn't I be able to
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003, Oded Arbel wrote about I wish stack traces had line numbers:
But they don't. instead they have memory addresses and the function name. so
I've been thinking - suppose I have a binary with debugging information, and
the source code and a stack trace - shouldn't I
07 2003, 18:43,Muli Ben-Yehuda:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 06:24:02PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
But they don't. instead they have memory addresses and the function name.
so I've been thinking - suppose I have a binary with debugging
information, and the source code and a stack trace -
On Sunday 07 December 2003 19:48, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Yes, you can easily do what you want, and you don't even need the function
name, just the pointers. The program you're looking for is add2line.
Typo... it's addr2line (missing 'r')
--
Oron Peled Voice/Fax:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003, Nadav Har'El wrote about Re: I wish stack traces had line
numbers:
Yes, you can easily do what you want, and you don't even need the function
name, just the pointers. The program you're looking for is add2line.
Oops, typo. I meant addr2line.
--
Nadav Har'El
