Julian Harnath wrote: > Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> schrieb: > > What is printed now is the address of the frame, the > > return address (aka caller) it contains, and the name > > of the function that return address resolves to. > > Aaaah, so the name column is supposed to belong to what the return > address points at. Ok, then it is consistent, but I absolutely did not > expect that :) I thought the name column was "what function's frame is > this". > Maybe a simple change that could be made to make it more clear is to > just change the column heading text? Currently it says "frame ... caller > ... <image>:function + offset". Maybe change the last column's title to > something like "caller <image>:function + offset" or so? Sure. Alternatively the last column heading could be omitted completely, effectively joining the two columns to one "caller" column. At least I don't think the heading is needed to understand what is printed. Though I may be biased. CU, Ingo