backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()

Fri Dec 5 15:15:00 GMT 2003

Mohan Embar writes:
 > > > 
 > > > ...so is my analysis correct that because of these additions, we can now
 > > > revert to DWARF EH on Win32? Ranjit?
 > 
 > >Well, it's true that in general you no longer have to unwind through
 > >exception handler frames. However, there's still a problem with
 > >exceptions thrown in CNI code. I am proposing, probably post 3.4
 > >split, to change CNI so that null pointer checks are enabled even in
 > >CNI code.
 > 
 > >So, DWARF EH sounds like a batter plan. Unless there's some other
 > >reason I don't know about...
 > 
 > I wasn't clear on whether you meant now or post-3.4.
Probably post-3.4. I'm open to suggestions.
 > (The CNI code is completely bug-free, so this shouldn't be an issue, right?)
Well, it's not that, exactly. 
The run time is supposed to detect null pointer accesses in CNI code
automagically; this works fine with proper signal unwinding, but not
otherwise. The change that will enable null pointer checking even in
CNI code is not ABI compatible, and is such a disruptive change that I
want to postpone it until after 3.4 branches.
Andrew.