[PATCH] drkonqi: s/backtrace/backtrace full/g

[Dominique Devriese]

Russell Miller writes:

> On Tuesday 27 January 2004 03:46 am, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>> I like it. But the backtrace itself can become not very visible if
>> there are many variables. I think it would be better to do "bt"
>> followed by "backtrace full".

> GDB backtraces can bog down a slow machine.  Does "backtrace full"
> make the resource demands higher?  If so, perhaps we should allow
> the user to "opt out" in a userfriendly manner:

A full backtrace does not add significant overhead.  Doing both a
normal and a full backtrace adds a little overhead, but most of the
backtrace overhead is not there, but in booting up gdb, and waiting
for it to load the necessary symbols.  Thus, this is a separate issue
from my patch.

cheers
domi