From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10139 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2015 07:02:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10015 invoked by uid 48); 12 Feb 2015 07:02:55 -0000 From: "vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:02:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: go X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ian at airs dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg01291.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999 --- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt --- As far as I understand, the code in libbacktrace was originally only intended for handling exceptions, not for generating stack traces? For the former, the code is fine. But given a function's return address, identifying the call instruction is non-trivial. Gdb has complex heuristics to get that right in case of inlined functions, tail calls or the hand written trampolines in libffi. Glibc probably has the same complexity for backtrace_symbols() call. With libgo's backtrace functionality we need to duplicate the same logic in libbacktrace, no?