From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:38:37 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] gcc: remove option on SJLJ exceptions In-Reply-To: <201007290538.09064.minimod@morethan.org> References: <6d4a992e2b817cc14276c68e0321edaf66450cf3.1280385006.git.thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <201007290538.09064.minimod@morethan.org> Message-ID: <20100729133837.5680e0c2@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:38:06 -0500 "Michael S. Zick" wrote: > And of course you confirmed that the Lua package's > error handling still works properly, complete with > same backtrace that is produced when SJLJ exceptions are enabled. No, I did not. > You did make that test didn't you? Why do you need to be so aggressive ? It is possible that removing this option was a mistake, but there's *really* no need to be so aggressive. It only reduces the motivation to look at the problem... So, trying to be constructive, how can I test that Lua still produces correct backtraces ? (I'm not a Lua programmer at all). Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com