-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
std: Include line numbers in backtraces. #22839
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bdd31b3
std: Include line numbers in backtraces.
lifthrasiir 3b8f8b8
Removed an excess feature flag from the backtrace test.
lifthrasiir 587f10a
Makes the picky tidy satisfied. Also refers to the correct issue.
lifthrasiir ff678ea
std: Fixed backtrace warnings and tests for non-Linux platforms.
lifthrasiir File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | ||
// Copyright 2015 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT | ||
// file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at | ||
// http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. | ||
// | ||
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or | ||
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license | ||
// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your | ||
// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed | ||
// except according to those terms. | ||
|
||
// ignore-test: not a test, used by backtrace-debuginfo.rs to test file!() | ||
|
||
#[inline(never)] | ||
pub fn callback<F>(f: F) where F: FnOnce((&'static str, u32)) { | ||
f((file!(), line!())) | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[inline(always)] | ||
pub fn callback_inlined<F>(f: F) where F: FnOnce((&'static str, u32)) { | ||
f((file!(), line!())) | ||
} | ||
|
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm this may explain some of the weird backtraces I saw when I initially wrote all this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was that why
_Unwind_FindEnclosingFunction
is used?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I remember correctly, I think so? Although I'd have to test both ways... It's been awhile :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, I was thinking about replacing that call with
backtrace_pcinfo
. There is a reason I haven't do so, though:backtrace_pcinfo
does provide a function information as well, but as far as I tested that function name andbacktrace_syminfo
-based name differ a bit for normal functions and the former is almost unusable for closures (fnfn
? seriously?). I guess they go through a different strategy.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting, well I'm pretty much game for whatever works right now :)