|
From: Nicholas N. <n.n...@gm...> - 2009-02-05 21:29:22
|
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > > On further consideration of this, a couple of comments: > > 1. Perhaps creating a new struct StackTrace is too much trouble. Possibly... if it's variable-sized then you can't stack-allocate it (can you?) and that would inconvenience many existing uses. > 2. At the moment the machinery operates by passing around > (ips, n_ips) pairs. Won't the proposed change cause > confusion about the meaning of n_ips? Because then there > are two lengths to record: the size of the ips array, and > the number of actually used entries in it. > > So maybe it's then relevant to consider a representation > (ips, ips_size, ips_used), where 1 <= ips_size <= VG_DEEPEST_STACKTRACE > and 1 <= ips_used <= ips_size ? Yep. I'll likely do something like this when I get to looking at it. N |