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

Dump call stack on segmentation fault #727

Closed
abitmore opened this issue Mar 15, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Dump call stack on segmentation fault #727

abitmore opened this issue Mar 15, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

There is such an option in Steem.

@abitmore abitmore added this to the Future Non-Consensus-Changing Release milestone Mar 15, 2018
@jmjatlanta
Copy link
Contributor

jmjatlanta commented Mar 19, 2018

Note: I am not claiming this issue. I am building requirements. Please comment below, and I will update this post:

Steemit modifies the default segfault handler with its own. The code can be found at https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/fc/src/stacktrace.cpp

This code works for gcc-compiled binaries (Linux & macOS), and on other platforms simply notifies the end-user that there will be no stacktrace.

It appears that this simply requires a call to print_stacktrace_on_segfault during startup to enable.

This code appears to originally be under the WTFPL version 2.0, and the Steemit modifications under MIT (see https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/LICENSE.md) hence licensing should not be an issue.


Edit: Clarified licensing.

@abitmore
Copy link
Member Author

The file in Steem repository has been modified by Steemit, Inc. According to https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/LICENSE.md, the modification is (re)licensed under MIT. In order to use it we need to honor their license, which includes keeping their copyright notice. Am I correct?

@jmjatlanta
Copy link
Contributor

jmjatlanta commented Mar 19, 2018

In order to use it we need to honor their license, which includes keeping their copyright notice. Am I correct?

I'm no lawyer. But I believe we could (a) include something like their 1st paragraph into our MIT license file. Or (b) if we wanted to grab the original source file from its original owner, then modify it with our own stuff, we would be back to complying with the original WTFPL license. I don't think either option is difficult. My preference would be (a).

@jmjatlanta
Copy link
Contributor

I would estimate that actual coding would only take 1/2h, testing 2h. We should test with fc::thread to make sure the results make sense (or at least don't crash before completed). Please comment if you think I'm off-base.

@oxarbitrage
Copy link
Member

hey John, estimate for the feature is ok, can you take you a few more hs and will be ok with me. please take it. i just assigned you to it.

@abitmore abitmore modified the milestones: Future Non-Consensus-Changing Release, 201805 - Non-Consensus-Changing Release Apr 26, 2018
abitmore added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 30, 2018
Bump FC for ninja build #859 and stacktrace #727
@abitmore
Copy link
Member Author

abitmore commented May 8, 2018

This has been done in develop branch.

@abitmore abitmore closed this as completed May 8, 2018
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

3 participants