2 ms·

I don't get it. If you're unwinding the stack aren't you going to be referring to DWARF tables anyway for things like symbols, CFI to locate catch blocks (in C

by nly 12y ago

I don't get it. If you're unwinding the stack aren't you going to be referring to DWARF tables anyway for things like symbols, CFI to locate catch blocks (in C++), or something else that is actually going to allow you to do something useful? Having to switch off of the instruction pointer to decode the stack doesn't seem like much of an extra burden. Just dumping a list of stack frame addresses isn't terribly useful. On another note, the DWARF standard is fairly approachable reading: http://dwarfstd.org/doc/DWARF4.pdf http://dwarfstd.org/doc/DWARF4.pdf

boulos 12y ago
You can offer quite a lot of info (like backtraces, sampling profilers, etc.) for many runtimes just with the function name (which you can do without full on DWARF). The old LLVM JIT engine had a good NotifyFunctionEmitted hook for exactly this kind of usage. It's really about taking DWARF parsing / loading off the critical path for common use cases.