Skip to content
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

Better testing for Stackwalk #18

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Apr 29, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Better testing for Stackwalk #18

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Apr 29, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

I was thinking about different ways to test Stackwalk.  One idea I had was
to walk the test process' own stack.  I threw this together, which makes a
bunch of recursive calls to verify that Stackwalker returns the right
number of frames on x86.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mmento...@gmail.com on 7 Sep 2006 at 8:58

Attachments:

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by mmento...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2006 at 4:41

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

This is a new version that's capable of doing the self-test on both x86 and 
ppc.  I
don't want to check this in (or if we check it in, I don't want to make the 
test part
of the standard "make check" suite) because certain optimizations can flatten 
the
recursion.  This causes CountCallerFrames to correctly return a smaller number 
than
the logical recursion depth, and is treated as a failure, even though the stack 
is in
good shape and was fully walked successfully.

Original comment by mmento...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2006 at 4:43

Attachments:

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Conditional testing

Original comment by mmento...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2006 at 7:42

Attachments:

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Checked in, [35].  This test is disabled by default.  Enable it by configuring 
with
--enable-selftest.

Original comment by mmento...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2006 at 9:16

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by mmento...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2006 at 9:17

  • Changed state: Fixed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant