Re: [boost] [Backtrace] Any interest in portable stack trace?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Backtrace] Any interest in portable stack trace?
From: Rob Riggs (rob_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-23 16:20:16

  On 10/23/2010 03:40 AM, Artyom wrote:
>>> No using ELF data - the symbols available  in.
>> My understanding is that the software distributed by RPM these days  (since
>> circa 2003) default to having all of the symbol information stripped and
>> distributed in a separate debuginfo package.
>>
>> To wit:
>>
>> nm   /bin/ls
>> nm: /bin/ls: no symbols
>>
>> I believe that to get any sort of  stack trace out of /bin/ls one would need to
>> first load the symbols from the  coreutils-debuginfo  package.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> I'm not talking about debug symbols but rather function entry points defined in
> any shared object:
>
> $ nm /lib/libc.so.6
> nm: /lib/libc.so.6: no symbols
>
> $ nm -D /lib/libc.so.6
> ...
> 00000000000864b0 W wcstod_l
> 0000000000083770 T wcstof
> 000000000008ace0 W wcstof_l
> 0000000000040810 T wcstoimax
> 0000000000081e80 T wcstok
> 00000000000836b0 T wcstol
> 0000000000083bf0 W wcstol_l
> ...
>
> All you need is to compile executables with -rdynamic
>
Ah. I understand now.  But does this mean that the symbols (functions) 
that are already resolved within my application will not have symbolic 
names  available for the backtrace?  My stripped executables only seem 
to have the undefined symbolic names present in the executable.

Rob