| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 2020/03/27 03:25, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
| 4 |
> On 3/23/2020 04:21, Jaco Kroon wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Hi, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/713668 relates. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> * Searching for /usr/include/execinfo.h ... |
| 10 |
>> sys-libs/glibc-2.29-r7 (/usr/include/execinfo.h) |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> As I see I can either add an explicit depend on glibc which I'd prefer |
| 13 |
>> not to. Or someone from the musl team could possibly assist on how to |
| 14 |
>> get the backtrace() set of calls on musl please? |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Alternatively I need to add a test and simply path debug.c to only |
| 17 |
>> provide stub function for print_backtrace(FILE *fp) that just does |
| 18 |
>> fprintf(fp, "No backtrace() available to print a backtrace.\n"); |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Suggestions? |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Kind Regards, |
| 23 |
>> Jaco |
| 24 |
> Some quick searching on google, it looks like the cleanest fix for that bug |
| 25 |
> is dahdi-tools needs to be patched to only include execinfo.h or only use |
| 26 |
> backtrace() on glibc-based systems, and that patch then sent to the |
| 27 |
> dahdi-tools upstream developers for inclusion in a future release. That |
| 28 |
> way, we're not dragging that patch around forever in the tree or in the musl |
| 29 |
> overlay. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks. I'll see action accordingly. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> It also doesn't look like musl itself will ever implement execinfo.h or |
| 35 |
> backtrace(), per this message in 2015 from the lead musl developer: |
| 36 |
> https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/04/09/3 |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
Implementing libunwind is overkill for my needs, I'll be happy to help |
| 39 |
push things upstream if somebody else cares enough to implement. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Kind Regards, |
| 42 |
Jaco |
Archives