From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=dlkj=5V=klomp.org=mark@sourceware.org>
Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 011DD3858D1E
	for <gnu-gabi@sourceware.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 11:13:45 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 011DD3858D1E
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org
Received: from r6.localdomain (82-217-174-174.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [82.217.174.174])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC050302BBEC;
	Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:13:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: by r6.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id B369F34013D; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:13:44 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <088fb3ea96e64f2dcc5e2af1d49bec3fdab3482a.camel@klomp.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add PT_GNU_SFRAME segment
From: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
To: Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@oracle.com>, gnu-gabi@sourceware.org
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:13:44 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20230123195619.16513-1-indu.bhagat@oracle.com>
References: <20230123195619.16513-1-indu.bhagat@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.2 (3.46.2-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3030.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gnu-gabi.sourceware.org>

Hi Indu,

On Mon, 2023-01-23 at 11:56 -0800, Indu Bhagat via Gnu-gabi wrote:
> As I submit this patch, I am reminded of my ongoing unease with using the
> keyword "unwind information" with SFrame format. SFrame format, is the Si=
mple
> Frame format, which represents the minimal necessary information for
> backtracing:
>   - Canonical Frame Address (CFA)
>   - Frame Pointer (FP)
>   - Return Address (RA)
> As such, one can argue that there is a clear distinction between "backtra=
ce"
> (=3Dsimple call trace) and "unwind"(=3Dstack walk + recover state/regs).=
=20
>=20
> What do you think will the "correct" terminology here (if there is one) ?
> Simple Frame format is for backtracing only, but calling it a "backtrace
> format" also sounds off. May be "backtracing format" ? Simple Frame, SFra=
me,
>   backtracing format...
>=20
> Thoughts?

What about calling it a "call trace"?
Although technically it is a "return trace".

Cheers,

Mark