Re: RFC: Stack saving/tracing functionality.

From: Poul-Henning Kamp (phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk)
Date: 06/13/05

  • Next message: Roman Neuhauser: "Re: Bug in #! processing - "pear broken on current"" 
    To: Bakul Shah <bakul@BitBlocks.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:16:10 +0200

    In message <200506111546.j5BFkToq011515@gate.bitblocks.com>, Bakul Shah writes:
    >> ... but it would be neat if it could also save/print userland stacks
    >> so that we could get tracebacks from abort()'ing userland programs.
    >
    >Along these lines; wouldn't it be neat if there was a sysctl
    >to leave a segfaulted or aborted process around so that you
    >can attach a debugger to it and find out what went wrong (and
    >may be even correct it!)? Debugging a live process (even if
    >fatally injured) yields more clues as you can poke around at
    >its I/O connections, its caller process etc. A separate
    >program can be used to create a coredump if you really wish
    >to preseve the dead body for later autopsy.

    Ideally a coredump should include anything sockstat and fstat can
    tell you about the process.

    /me longs for the MVS dumps level of details... 

    -- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Roman Neuhauser: "Re: Bug in #! processing - "pear broken on current""