DWARF support

[Chris Smith]

Just to satisfy my curiosity here, when talking about backtraces here, are
you talking about a lexical call stack, or an execution stack?

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:24 AM Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev>
wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org> wrote:
>
> At this point, for backtrace support I would rather put my money is on a
> native Haskell stack unwinder (such as Sven Tennie's work [3,4]). Not only
> is it more portable but it is also more robust (whereas with DWARF any
> single object lacking debug information would break unwinding), and is
> significantly less costly since we know much more about the structure of
> our stack than a DWARF unwinder would.
>
>
> Interesting -- this is helpful to know. I had heard about DWARF support
> for some years and thought that it would deliver stack traces. Now I will
> look for other sources. All good -- I understand how this is hard! -- and
> nice to know about.
>
> Thanks for the writeup, Ben.
>
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20211118/50bb5007/attachment.html>