Thinking about this in more detail, I think this facility would be most useful if it also contained information about what module/file the code came from. I'm currently attempting to track down a bug in the code generator which I know is due to a miscompiled library, and it would make my life substantially easier if there was an easy way to narrow down possible crash sites.
I suppose one method already available to me is to get a list of suspicious identifiers and then cross reference these against the generated object files. Edward Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Mar 01 05:46:01 -0500 2011: > On 21/02/2011 01:08, Edward Z. Yang wrote: > > Excerpts from Tyson Whitehead's message of Sun Feb 20 07:14:56 -0500 2011: > >> I believe a back trace on the actual call stack is generally considered not > >> that useful in a lazy language as it corresponds to the evaluation > >> sequence, > >> That is, it is demand centric while written code is production centric > > > > Yeah, such a buffer wouldn't be very useful for end-users; I'm thinking more > > in terms of going "backwards in time" for the STG execution. > > Yes, that might be useful. However it would require compiling all the > libraries with that option too - so it would be an internal debug option > for use with a live GHC build, not something you could use with a > pre-built GHC (well, you could use it, but you wouldn't get traces for > library code). > > Cheers, > Simon _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
