backtrace semantics

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 01/18/2013 05:14 PM, David Miller wrote:
> 
> First, thanks for adding all the new backtrace() test cases.
> 
> There seems to be an inconsistency about how to handle the top-most
> frame in the backtrace.
> 
> x86 for example, includes the caller of backtrace(), and this matches
> the expectation of the new testcases.
> 
> Whereas s390 and sparc, for example, elide the backtrace() caller's
> frame from the backtrace, and starts reporting at the frame
> immediately afterwards.
> 
> Which one is correct?
 
I'd say you should always list the caller of backtrace() in the frame.

In gdb when you issue `bt' you always get the caller in the backtrace.

Cheers,
Carlos.