Re: GCJ Stack Traces for arm-wince-pe on gcj 3.4.3

Craig Vanderborgh wrote:
> 
> I am still pretty fuzzy on what code generation options should be used
> to generate stack frames that could be unwound.  The things I have
> tried so far (such as -mapcs-32) have not resulted in stack frames
> that I could unwind.  Any suggestions on what the right compiler
> options might be?

I would have expected that to work.  Strict APCS compliance requires
an unwindable stack chain.  What's wrong?

> Our applications are almost entirely AOT-compiled to native
> arm-wince-pe objects.  So I could potentially look up and display
> functions from the linked part of the application in my stack trace,
> right?  That would be much better than nothing and would be a workable
> solution for the near term.

Sure.

Andrew.