On 05.04.2018 00:55, Havard Eidnes wrote: > Hm, I am suspecting that nobody has actually tested whether > backtrace() really works on NetBSD/powerpc... I'll write a > simple test of that in C tomorrow. > Yes, this looks more like dysfunctional backtrace(3). We have got an ATF test for this: tests/lib/libexecinfo/t_backtrace.c If it will work, it's worth to add a scenario that fails for ppc. I don't see an ATF machine for powerpc, there shall be one available. http://releng.netbsd.org/test-results.html > On the other hand, the backtrace gdb was able to provide > decidedly looks incomplete -- the program's main function is not > opendir() (!), and maybe this has something to do with it? > This is a bug, it's really a signal trapmpoline. This needs to be fixed in GDB.. it's on my TODO list. > It doesn't look like the SupportTests program is multi-threaded, > although it is linked with -lpthread: > It's common in the LLVM environment to link with everything that could be useful.. like libm, librt, libpthread, libdl [for !NetBSD] etc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature