Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] Use backtrace() instead of __builtin_return_address()

Bernhard Walle wrote: > > * Dave Anderson [2008-05-14 08:56]: >> Thanks for digging into this. I agree with you on all counts. >> >> One final question: does the remaining call to __builtin_return_address(0) >> in tools.c:getbuf() fail in your configuration as well? > > Yes. __builtin_return_address(0) works in all configurations and is > also guaranteed to work with gcc. Only __builtin_return_address(n) with > n > 0 makes problems when the frame pointer is omitted (which is the > default with -O2). > I'm confused -- you say it fails in your configuration, but then say that passing an argument of 0 (like getbuf() does) works in all configurations.