它甚至比“man backtrace”更简单，有一个很少有文档的库(GNU专用)作为libSegFault与glibc一起分发。所以，我相信这是由Ulrich Drepper写的，以支持程序catchsegv(见“man catchsegv”)。

这给了我们3种可能性。而不是运行“program -o hai”:

在catchsegv中运行: $ catchsegv程序-o hai 在运行时使用libSegFault链接: LD_PRELOAD = / lib / libSegFault美元。所以编程-o hai 在编译时使用libSegFault链接: $ gcc -g1 -lSegFault -o program program.cc $ program -o hai

在这三种情况下，您将获得更清晰的回溯，并减少优化(gcc -O0或-O1)和调试符号(gcc -g)。否则，您可能只会得到一堆内存地址。

你还可以通过以下方法捕获更多堆栈跟踪信号:

$ export SEGFAULT_SIGNALS="all"       # "all" signals
$ export SEGFAULT_SIGNALS="bus abrt"  # SIGBUS and SIGABRT

输出看起来像这样(注意底部的反向跟踪):

*** Segmentation fault Register dump:

 EAX: 0000000c   EBX: 00000080   ECX:
00000000   EDX: 0000000c  ESI:
bfdbf080   EDI: 080497e0   EBP:
bfdbee38   ESP: bfdbee20

 EIP: 0805640f   EFLAGS: 00010282

 CS: 0073   DS: 007b   ES: 007b   FS:
0000   GS: 0033   SS: 007b

 Trap: 0000000e   Error: 00000004  
OldMask: 00000000  ESP/signal:
bfdbee20   CR2: 00000024

 FPUCW: ffff037f   FPUSW: ffff0000  
TAG: ffffffff  IPOFF: 00000000  
CSSEL: 0000   DATAOFF: 00000000  
DATASEL: 0000

 ST(0) 0000 0000000000000000   ST(1)
0000 0000000000000000  ST(2) 0000
0000000000000000   ST(3) 0000
0000000000000000  ST(4) 0000
0000000000000000   ST(5) 0000
0000000000000000  ST(6) 0000
0000000000000000   ST(7) 0000
0000000000000000

Backtrace:
/lib/libSegFault.so[0xb7f9e100]
??:0(??)[0xb7fa3400]
/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl_queue.h:226(_ZNSt5queueISsSt5dequeISsSaISsEEE4pushERKSs)[0x805647a]
/home/dbingham/src/middle-earth-mud/alpha6/src/engine/player.cpp:73(_ZN6Player5inputESs)[0x805377c]
/home/dbingham/src/middle-earth-mud/alpha6/src/engine/socket.cpp:159(_ZN6Socket4ReadEv)[0x8050698]
/home/dbingham/src/middle-earth-mud/alpha6/src/engine/socket.cpp:413(_ZN12ServerSocket4ReadEv)[0x80507ad]
/home/dbingham/src/middle-earth-mud/alpha6/src/engine/socket.cpp:300(_ZN12ServerSocket4pollEv)[0x8050b44]
/home/dbingham/src/middle-earth-mud/alpha6/src/engine/main.cpp:34(main)[0x8049a72]
/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe5)[0xb7d1b775]
/build/buildd/glibc-2.9/csu/../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S:122(_start)[0x8049801]

如果你想知道血淋淋的细节，最好的来源是这个来源:参见http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=debug/segfault.c及其父目录http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=tree;f=debug

我研究这个问题有一段时间了。

深埋在谷歌性能工具README

http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/source/browse/trunk/README

谈到libunwind

http://www.nongnu.org/libunwind/

很乐意听听对这个图书馆的意见。

使用-rdynamic的问题是，在某些情况下，它会相对显著地增加二进制文件的大小

看:

男人3回溯

And:

#include <exeinfo.h>
int backtrace(void **buffer, int size);

这些是GNU扩展。

它看起来就像在最后一个c++增强版本中出现的库提供了你想要的东西，可能代码会是多平台的。 它是boost::stacktrace，你可以像在boost sample中那样使用:

#include <filesystem>
#include <sstream>
#include <fstream>
#include <signal.h>     // ::signal, ::raise
#include <boost/stacktrace.hpp>

const char* backtraceFileName = "./backtraceFile.dump";

void signalHandler(int)
{
    ::signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_DFL);
    ::signal(SIGABRT, SIG_DFL);
    boost::stacktrace::safe_dump_to(backtraceFileName);
    ::raise(SIGABRT);
}

void sendReport()
{
    if (std::filesystem::exists(backtraceFileName))
    {
        std::ifstream file(backtraceFileName);

        auto st = boost::stacktrace::stacktrace::from_dump(file);
        std::ostringstream backtraceStream;
        backtraceStream << st << std::endl;

        // sending the code from st

        file.close();
        std::filesystem::remove(backtraceFileName);
    }
}

int main()
{
    ::signal(SIGSEGV, signalHandler);
    ::signal(SIGABRT, signalHandler);

    sendReport();
    // ... rest of code
}

在Linux中编译上面的代码:

g++ --std=c++17 file.cpp -lstdc++fs -lboost_stacktrace_backtrace -ldl -lbacktrace

从boost文档复制的反向跟踪示例:

0# bar(int) at /path/to/source/file.cpp:70
1# bar(int) at /path/to/source/file.cpp:70
2# bar(int) at /path/to/source/file.cpp:70
3# bar(int) at /path/to/source/file.cpp:70
4# main at /path/to/main.cpp:93
5# __libc_start_main in /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
6# _start

You are probably not going to like this - all I can say in its favour is that it works for me, and I have similar but not identical requirements: I am writing a compiler/transpiler for a 1970's Algol-like language which uses C as it's output and then compiles the C so that as far as the user is concerned, they're generally not aware of C being involved, so although you might call it a transpiler, it's effectively a compiler that uses C as it's intermediate code. The language being compiled has a history of providing good diagnostics and a full backtrace in the original native compilers. I've been able to find gcc compiler flags and libraries etc that allow me to trap most of the runtime errors that the original compilers did (although with one glaring exception - unassigned variable trapping). When a runtime error occurs (eg arithmetic overflow, divide by zero, array index out of bounds, etc) the original compilers output a backtrace to the console listing all variables in the stack frames of every active procedure call. I struggled to get this effect in C, but eventually did so with what can only be described as a hack... When the program is invoked, the wrapper that supplies the C "main" looks at its argv, and if a special option is not present, it restarts itself under gdb with an altered argv containing both gdb options and the 'magic' option string for the program itself. This restarted version then hides those strings from the user's code by restoring the original arguments before calling the main block of the code written in our language. When an error occurs (as long as it is not one explicitly trapped within the program by user code), it exits to gdb which prints the required backtrace.

启动序列中的关键代码行包括:

  if ((argc >= 1) && (strcmp(origargv[argc-1], "--restarting-under-gdb")) != 0) {
    // initial invocation
    // the "--restarting-under-gdb" option is how the copy running under gdb knows
    // not to start another gdb process.

and

  char *gdb [] = {
    "/usr/bin/gdb", "-q", "-batch", "-nx", "-nh", "-return-child-result",
    "-ex", "run",
    "-ex", "bt full",
    "--args"
  };

The original arguments are appended to the gdb options above. That should be enough of a hint for you to do something similar for your own system. I did look at other library-supported backtrace options (eg libbacktrace, https://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2010/09/gcc-function-instrumentation.html, etc) but they only output the procedure call stack, not the local variables. However if anyone knows of any cleaner mechanism to get a similar effect, do please let us know. The main downside to this is that the variables are printed in C syntax, not the syntax of the language the user writes in. And (until I add suitable #line directives on every generated line of C :-() the backtrace lists the C source file and line numbers.

G PS我使用的gcc编译选项是:

 GCCOPTS=" -Wall -Wno-return-type -Wno-comment -g -fsanitize=undefined
 -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error -fno-sanitize-recover=all -frecord-gcc-switches
 -fsanitize=float-divide-by-zero -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow -ftrapv
 -grecord-gcc-switches -O0 -ggdb3 "

ulimit -c unlimited

是一个系统变量，它将允许在应用程序崩溃后创建一个核心转储。在这种情况下是无限的。在同一目录中查找一个名为core的文件。确保在编译代码时启用了调试信息!

问候