More bad backtraces through nanosleep

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

Er, ah, I meant to send this to libc-alpha also of course.

On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 03:22:32PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> This is a little unfortunate...
> 
> Glibc with NPTL uses DWARF-2 unwind information to describe syscall
> wrappers, because the NPTL implementation of cancellation uses dwarf2
> unwinding.  However, glibc with LinuxThreads does not.  So if you're running
> a multi-threaded LinuxThreads application, when we hit a syscall we're
> likely to get completely lost.  We can't reasonably expect GDB's prologue
> unwinder to figure out nanosleep; the function has no prologue, and then
> pushes things onto the stack inside CENABLE/CDISABLE.
> 
> Libc folks, would there be any disadvantages besides space to adding unwind
> info to the cancellable syscall wrappers in LT also?  How would you feel
> about such a patch?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer