quoted

Because that's really the issue: do you want a "pretty" backtrace, or do 
you want one that is rock solid but has some crud in it.

I just want an as exact backtrace as possible. I also think
that we can make the unwinder robust enough.

Any reason you can't put the exact back trace in "[xxx]" and the ones we
see on the stack which dont look like call trace as ?xxx? It makes the
code a bit trickier but we depend on the quality of traces

Alan