Re: [PATCH] Add PT_GNU_SFRAME segment

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>]

On 1/24/23 06:13, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 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 Simple
>> 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 "backtrace"
>> (=simple call trace) and "unwind"(=stack walk + recover state/regs). 
>>
>> 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, SFrame,
>>   backtracing format...
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> What about calling it a "call trace"?
> Although technically it is a "return trace".

You are "stack walking" in this case, either following a backchain, or sequence of chained
values that allow you to walk the stack and identify call frames. You are indeed walking
the list of called functions via their call frames.

I like "call trace" as a technical term. We are walking the call frames and taking a trace
of them, rather than unwinding. So "call trace format"?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.