Re: DWARF support

Just to satisfy my curiosity here, when talking about backtraces here, are you talking about a lexical call stack, or an execution stack? On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:24 AM Richard Eisenberg wrote:

On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:

At this point, for backtrace support I would rather put my money is on a native Haskell stack unwinder (such as Sven Tennie's work [3,4]). Not only is it more portable but it is also more robust (whereas with DWARF any single object lacking debug information would break unwinding), and is significantly less costly since we know much more about the structure of our stack than a DWARF unwinder would.

Interesting -- this is helpful to know. I had heard about DWARF support for some years and thought that it would deliver stack traces. Now I will look for other sources. All good -- I understand how this is hard! -- and nice to know about.

Thanks for the writeup, Ben.

Richard _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs