RE: [libunwind] RE: Question on libunwind-dynamic

[Thomas Hallgren]

> In other words, encapsulate the unw_dyn_info_t. Since both the
function
> table and the structures will be present in a core file, it should be
> possible to unwind it.
>
And then again, of course it wouldn't. Not without an ISV extension.

> > ...  I'm worried that ISVs would create
> > binary-only extensions to libunwind, which would make it impossible
> > to, e.g., unwind a particular stack from a platform which isn't
> > supported by the ISV.  Even when the extensions are available for
the
> > local platform, just managing them would be a huge pain, in my
> > opinion.
> >
I don't see that as a problem at all. It's the ISV's problem altogether.
They, if any, should be eager to provide and manage the necessary
plugins. BEA would of course bundle them with their JDK.

The reason I'm pursuing this track is that we try to minimize our memory
consumption and this would undoubtedly increase it. We don't want to
create additional structures for each method that we generate if it can
be avoided. As I said earlier, it's a *lot* of methods and we already
have similar structures.

Regards,

Thomas Hallgren