Re: Challenging things to do: SIGSEGV catcher and backtrace extractor
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: If you read the rest of the post I mention it (without telling the name :). The problem with this module is that it's useful only after you have the core file. which is not good, because (as I've already explained): it's important to mention Devel::CoreStack, as it is a good starting point. 1. Many users have problems getting the core file dumped then there'd be no way to automate generating a stacktrace anyhow. 2. There can be multiply segfaults with different causes which will overwrite each other, so we want to catch SEGVs as they happen. that's ok, we'll deal with one at time. Not talking about the fact that this module is not slick, e.g. you need manual interaction to help it get to the trace. (it shows the gdb's *more* pager for long output of loading symbols). don't have to use the module as-is, but there is plenty of logic in there that can be borrowed, rather than figuring out everything from scratch.
Re: Challenging things to do: SIGSEGV catcher and backtrace extractor
Doug MacEachern wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: If you read the rest of the post I mention it (without telling the name :). The problem with this module is that it's useful only after you have the core file. which is not good, because (as I've already explained): it's important to mention Devel::CoreStack, as it is a good starting point. true, as it has the config for a few known debuggers, but otherwise it just invokes the debugger and pipes the 'bt' or equivalent command to it and grabs the output. 1. Many users have problems getting the core file dumped then there'd be no way to automate generating a stacktrace anyhow. You can get a backtrace if you run the process under debugger without dumping a core file. No special setup required. I was thinking to attach the debugger on SIGSEGV event. Is it too late? I see certain gnome apps failing and they ask you if you want to get the stack, without me doing anything at all. That's what I want for modperl. You say it's not possible? __ Stas BekmanJAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide --- http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: Challenging things to do: SIGSEGV catcher and backtrace extractor
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: You can get a backtrace if you run the process under debugger without dumping a core file. No special setup required. I was thinking to attach the debugger on SIGSEGV event. Is it too late? I see certain gnome apps failing and they ask you if you want to get the stack, without me doing anything at all. That's what I want for modperl. You say it's not possible? anything is possible of course. but then you have to run the tests with httpd running under gdb, not something that should be done by default. maybe you don't need gdb either, i dunno, if gnome has a trick up its sleeve, might be worth looking at.
Re: Challenging things to do: SIGSEGV catcher and backtrace extractor
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 02:09:44AM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote: Doug MacEachern wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: If you read the rest of the post I mention it (without telling the name :). The problem with this module is that it's useful only after you have the core file. which is not good, because (as I've already explained): it's important to mention Devel::CoreStack, as it is a good starting point. true, as it has the config for a few known debuggers, but otherwise it just invokes the debugger and pipes the 'bt' or equivalent command to it and grabs the output. 1. Many users have problems getting the core file dumped then there'd be no way to automate generating a stacktrace anyhow. You can get a backtrace if you run the process under debugger without dumping a core file. No special setup required. I was thinking to attach the debugger on SIGSEGV event. Is it too late? I see certain gnome apps failing and they ask you if you want to get the stack, without me doing anything at all. That's what I want for modperl. You say it's not possible? Sure, that's possible from the SEGV handler. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
