On 11/07/2013 05:09, "Charles Oliver Nutter" <head...@headius.com> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Noctarius <m...@noctarius.com> wrote: >> Maybe a solution could be an annotation to mark calls to not >> appear in any stacktrace? > >Personally, I'd love to see *any* way to teach JVM about >language-specific stack traces. Currently JRuby post-processes >exception traces to mine out compiled Ruby lines and transform >interpreter frames into proper file:line pairs. A way to say "at this >point, call back my code to build a StackTraceElement" would be very >useful across languages.
I think I'd be most interested in looking at the facilities offered by StackTraceElements, and the access provided to information like source file data from classes. Currently we have to store duplicate information on classes because there needs to be information accessible via debuggers and stack traces which is also needed for providing expected pieces of information about methods. Maybe a way to get the actual class objects from a stack trace, and a way to access the source file information (and other debug related data) from a class object. This wouldn't provide a standard mechanism for language specific stack traces, but would provide a much firmer base on which to build. Duncan. _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
