|
From: Tom H. <to...@co...> - 2011-04-20 11:17:30
|
On 20/04/11 11:12, Julian Seward wrote: > * change of backtrace format? For years we've had code addresses > in backtraces. They use up valuable screen space, but 99% of the > time are completely useless. Should we omit them by default, > as does the TSan tool? > eg > Invalid write of size 1 > at 0x400544: ddd (errs1.c:7) > by 0x400550: ccc (errs1.c:8) > by 0x40055B: bbb (errs1.c:9) > by 0x400566: aaa (errs1.c:10) > by 0x4005AE: main (errs1.c:17) > vs > Invalid write of size 1 > #0 ddd (errs1.c:7) > #1 ccc (errs1.c:8) > #2 bbb (errs1.c:9) > #3 aaa (errs1.c:10) > #4 main (errs1.c:17) I agree that the address is generally not useful, except I would say in the case of the first frame, where it gives you the address of the exact instruction which triggered the report. Maybe we could capture that on the first line, something like: Invalid write of size 1 at 0x400544 and then drop the addresses from the stack trace. Tom -- Tom Hughes (to...@co...) http://compton.nu/ |