Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:45:18 -0500 | From | David Feuer <> | Subject | Re: core files (was Re: 2.1.131: some quality thoughts) |
| |
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Horst H. von Brand writes: > > "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> said: > > >> Long term, I think the whole core file idea needs to be tossed in > >> favor of just starting a debugger. > > > > Obviously also paging the party responsible for the crashed program. Using > > some random vt for the task when a daemon crashes, too, I suppose? > > If crash handler registered > stop the task and notify a registered user-space handler, > else > dump core. > > Crash handlers could be per-UID. They could listen on a device or > expect real-time (why call it that?) signals with data attached. > They could be full graphical GNOME apps that look up the maintainer > in an RPM database and offer to mail a form letter. The process > could be kept alive, which is more useful than a core. Someone with > a clue would get a chance to start up ddd on a live process, with > all the network connections intact. > > Core files just aren't likely to generate useful bug reports. > Maybe 1% of the time someone submits a proper report. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
I don't know about bug reports, but I have found core dumps very helpful to locate the problem area when writing code, especially if running it in the debugger is inconvenient.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |