Re: The emacs_backtrace "feature"

[covici]

Christoph Scholtes <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 9/22/2012 6:05 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >      Core dumps are better than backtraces if they're available, but
> >      modern GNUish distributions often disable them, alas, and they're
> >      a pain to send via email, and it's nice to have a bit more info
> >      than 'Fatal error 27' when Emacs crashes.
> >
> > If you get a core dump, you can run GDB and make a backtrace
> > and mail that.
> 
> If you get a core dump, you _have_ to run GDB and make a
> backtrace. Some users might not know how nor care to know how to
> generate a backtrace from a core dump. I believe this is independent
> of the platform they are running on.
> 
> I think an automated way of generating backtraces is a good idea. The
> more we can automate the process of gathering information in case of a
> crash, the more likely users are to submit that information.
> 
> What do you think about the following:
> 
> Check if gdb is available (on startup, or when the crash happens).
> If it is, run something like 'gdb -batch-silent -ex 'thread apply all
> bt full'' and save backtrace to a file that can be attached to bug
> report.
> If it isn't, fall back to the backtrace() function and generate at
> least something.
> 
> Or we ask the user what she wants to do:
> 
> 1. Create backtrace (with or without gdb) and attach to bug report
> 2. Attach debugger
> 3. Nothing
> 
> This could be an option, too, like debug-on-error:
> create-backtrace-on-error or something like that.

The problem is that crashes happen in a way which precludes automation
of the backtrace.  The only thing is to give the user instructions as to
what to do with the core dump, even as to how to make sure he can get a
core dump at all.

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         address@hidden