public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug libgcj/12740] New: Stack trace infrastructure improvements
@ 2003-10-23  3:38 bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
  2003-10-23  3:39 ` [Bug libgcj/12740] " bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz @ 2003-10-23  3:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12740

           Summary: Stack trace infrastructure improvements
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: libgcj
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org

Stack traces are used by the Throwable class, security checks, calling-classloader lookup, and 
reflection accessibility checks. However, the current implementation is not conductive to 
supporting all these uses in an efficient manner. It needs to be refactored and improved.

Specifically:

- libgcc's unwinder machinery should be used instead of backtrace()
- allocation during stack tracing should be avoided where possible
- for security/classloader/accessibility checks, we should only walk the stack as far as needed to 
complete the check, not the entire stack
- native "RawData" pointers should not be passed around in Java code

The idea is to put common stack-trace infrastructure - code used for both exceptions and security 
- in a stacktrace.cc or something similar. natVMThrowable will use that and StackTrace.java etc will 
go away.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/12740] Stack trace infrastructure improvements
  2003-10-23  3:38 [Bug libgcj/12740] New: Stack trace infrastructure improvements bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
@ 2003-10-23  3:39 ` bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
  2003-10-23  6:02 ` bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
  2003-11-03 11:50 ` aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz @ 2003-10-23  3:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12740


bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |11780
              nThis|                            |


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/12740] Stack trace infrastructure improvements
  2003-10-23  3:38 [Bug libgcj/12740] New: Stack trace infrastructure improvements bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
  2003-10-23  3:39 ` [Bug libgcj/12740] " bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
@ 2003-10-23  6:02 ` bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
  2003-11-03 11:50 ` aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz @ 2003-10-23  6:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12740


bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2003-10-23 03:39:14
               date|                            |


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/12740] Stack trace infrastructure improvements
  2003-10-23  3:38 [Bug libgcj/12740] New: Stack trace infrastructure improvements bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
  2003-10-23  3:39 ` [Bug libgcj/12740] " bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
  2003-10-23  6:02 ` bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
@ 2003-11-03 11:50 ` aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: aph at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-11-03 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12740



------- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-11-03 11:50 -------
- libgcc's unwinder machinery should be used instead of backtrace()

This is probably true, but it may be slower.

- for security/classloader/accessibility checks, we should only walk the stack
as far as needed to complete the check, not the entire stack

I don't understand this.  We don't walk the entire stack at the moment.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/12740] Stack trace infrastructure improvements
       [not found] <bug-12740-6651@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2006-03-08 16:30 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-08 18:36 ` mckinlay at redhat dot com
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: mckinlay at redhat dot com @ 2006-03-08 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #3 from mckinlay at redhat dot com  2006-03-08 18:36 -------
Yes. This is fixed in GCC 4.1.


-- 

mckinlay at redhat dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12740


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libgcj/12740] Stack trace infrastructure improvements
       [not found] <bug-12740-6651@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2006-03-08 16:30 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2006-03-08 18:36 ` mckinlay at redhat dot com
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-08 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #2 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-08 16:30 -------
Isn't this fixed in 4.1?


-- 

tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12740


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-08 18:36 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-10-23  3:38 [Bug libgcj/12740] New: Stack trace infrastructure improvements bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
2003-10-23  3:39 ` [Bug libgcj/12740] " bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
2003-10-23  6:02 ` bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz
2003-11-03 11:50 ` aph at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <bug-12740-6651@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-03-08 16:30 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-08 18:36 ` mckinlay at redhat dot com

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).