From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45D873858D28 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:20:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 45D873858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1674566429; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ehVopWdJE4HE+/2qoS1NWW8E8+5+bJiUQZXW4hg3zkU=; b=YVDJDPd88dRJ+oUSqV6k3oeww6ksSgxohcGAMJISteQUXrfEjLeO5UW/JE3qVNuR0D7wj5 Z80WwDi4F332i0PH1VQ6/N7l0kp+YQUzYbo34JCC0pBGyKVPYjfP3D8eSZYLq3s905U40o OsO/0oPmL4Yzc9DCLYN7DKXJYLofWAI= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-252-UV7tYH0mPZyQ1ZiCsf3avQ-1; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:20:26 -0500 X-MC-Unique: UV7tYH0mPZyQ1ZiCsf3avQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69CE518F0264; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.194.74]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90D0C140EBF6; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 13:20:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Mark Wielaard Cc: Indu Bhagat , gnu-gabi@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add PT_GNU_SFRAME segment References: <20230123195619.16513-1-indu.bhagat@oracle.com> <088fb3ea96e64f2dcc5e2af1d49bec3fdab3482a.camel@klomp.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:20:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <088fb3ea96e64f2dcc5e2af1d49bec3fdab3482a.camel@klomp.org> (Mark Wielaard's message of "Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:13:44 +0100") Message-ID: <87o7qof4rs.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Mark Wielaard: > 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 th= e >> keyword "unwind information" with SFrame format. SFrame format, is the S= imple >> 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 "backtr= ace" >> (=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, SFr= ame, >> backtracing format... >>=20 >> Thoughts? > > What about calling it a "call trace"? > Although technically it is a "return trace". =E2=80=9CStack trace=E2=80=9D matches =E2=80=9CSFrame=E2=80=9D. That's Pyt= hon, Java etc. terminology and seems appropriate here, too. Thanks, Florian