What is the recommended method
to find the exact reason for a stack overflow
(when running a Haskell program compiled with ghc)?
When I compile with -prof -auto-all, and run with +RTS -xc,
I see a very short call stack, which can't be right.
But that's probably because I am calling some library
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:04:21 + (UTC)
Johannes Waldmann waldm...@imn.htwk-leipzig.de wrote:
What is the recommended method
Try to use heap profiling. There is very high probability that the
problem is because of space leak.
--
Aleksey Uymanov s9gf4...@gmail.com
Aleksey Uymanov s9gf4ult at gmail.com writes:
Try to use heap profiling. There is very high probability that the
problem is because of space leak.
Really? Would it help in the standard example:
main = print $ foldr (+) 0 [1 .. 1::Int]
this leaks space (that is, cannot run in small
On 19 September 2005 03:57, Frederik Eaton wrote:
It could be a bug - can you reduce the example and report it?
GHC's profiler tries to overlay a lexical call graph on to the
dynamic execution of the program. It does this more or less in the
way you described before: every function gets an
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 02:22:10PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
Frederik Eaton wrote:
In addition to the stack trace problems, I found: (1) a problem where
output freezes when it is being piped through 'tee' and the user
presses ^S and then ^Q
That's the terminal driver; use stty
It could be a bug - can you reduce the example and report it?
GHC's profiler tries to overlay a lexical call graph on to the dynamic
execution of the program. It does this more or less in the way you
described before: every function gets an extra argument describing the
call context.
On 10 September 2005 21:15, Frederik Eaton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 04:40:05PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Nils,
Friday, September 02, 2005, 10:47:05 AM, you wrote:
Compile your program with -prof -auto-all (make sure you have
the
I tried this out under GHC
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 10 September 2005 21:15, Frederik Eaton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 04:40:05PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Nils,
Friday, September 02, 2005, 10:47:05 AM, you wrote:
Compile your program with -prof
Isaac Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Hat requires users to restrict themselves to a certain small subset
of the standard libraries, and to use hmake
Also the issue of how libraries are
distributed in Haskell is a little bit in flux at the moment, since
Malcolm Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Isaac Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Hat requires users to restrict themselves to a certain small subset
of the standard libraries, and to use hmake
Also the issue of how libraries are
distributed in Haskell
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 11:12 +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Why is this a Cabal issue? Are you interested in adding Buddah
support to Cabal?
I think what Bernie is referring to is that ghc-pkg-6.4 uses an input
file format very similar to Cabal's file format, for registering a
new
Bernard Pope [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:48 -0700, Frederik Eaton wrote:
(snip)
Are the following correct?
1. Hat requires users to restrict themselves to a certain small subset
of the standard libraries, and to use hmake
Depends what you mean by standard libraries.
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:48 -0700, Frederik Eaton wrote:
Is it that backtraces are difficult, or just require a lot of
overhead? It doesn't seem very hard to me, at least in principle. Add
a stack trace argument to every function. Every time a function is
called, the source location of the
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005, Frederik Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But getting a stack backtrace when there is an error should be a
pretty basic feature. It's very hard to debug a large program when you
can randomly get messages like *** Exception: Prelude.head: empty
list and have no idea where
... It's very hard to debug a large program when you
can randomly get messages like *** Exception: Prelude.head: empty
list and have no idea where they came from.
As a purely pragmatic suggestion: don't use head, fromJust, last, or any
other function that is likely to fail in
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 05:10:35PM +1000, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
... It's very hard to debug a large program when you
can randomly get messages like *** Exception: Prelude.head: empty
list and have no idea where they came from.
As a purely pragmatic suggestion: don't use head, fromJust,
Just more or less as an aside, at its origin in April (!) this thread
didn't mention any debugger - the question was just how to build ghc
so that a stack trace would come out. A real debugger is no replacement
for that (because you have to be on hand and know how to repeat the problem
to
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 05:15:30PM +1000, Bernard Pope wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 07:45 +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
[I want to know] who called who all the way from main to head,
because the key function is going to be one somewhere in the middle.
Perhaps. I am told stack backtraces
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 07:45 +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
[I want to know] who called who all the way from main to head,
because the key function is going to be one somewhere in the middle.
Perhaps. I am told stack backtraces are difficult with non-strict
semantics.
This is true, at least
Hi, all,
I'm developing a back end for GHC and I have the following problem:
my program is throwing an empty list exception due to head [] and I
need to compile GHC with -prof -auto-all in order to see the stack
trace when running it with +RTS -xc -RTS. I changed the makefile but
the option
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Ketil Malde wrote:
Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no direct answer to your question, but a general comment on the
original problem (speaking from bad experience;-): things like
head have no place in a Haskell program of any non-trivial size,
because of their
Thanks, Ketil, your suggestion really helped me ! Thanks to Claus for the tips !
On 4/26/05, Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no direct answer to your question, but a general comment on the
original problem (speaking from bad experience;-):
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ideally, I think something like this should be the default behavior
for these functions.
But something like this should happen for any function, shouldn't
it?
Any function where pattern match could fail, yes. (Or should that be
any partial function?)
Hi, all,
I'm developing a back end for GHC and I have the following problem:
my program is throwing an empty list exception due to head [] and I
need to compile GHC with -prof -auto-all in order to see the stack
trace when running it with +RTS -xc -RTS. I changed the makefile but
the option +RTS
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 12:16:50PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
I have already isolated my bug within one function, but
that function has somewhat funky recursion, and uses an
array (which I'm none too familiar with in haskell), and
there aren't any smaller parts that I can see to test.
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does one debug in haskell? I have a function that I could swear should
behave differently than it does, and after tracking down bugs for many
hours, I'm wondering if there's any way to step through the evaluation of a
haskell function?
The best
On 2002-10-05 at 18:41EDT David Roundy wrote:
How does one debug in haskell?
One doesn't. One writes correct code in Haskell ;-b
I have already isolated my bug within one function, but
that function has somewhat funky recursion, and uses an
array (which I'm none too familiar with in haskell
Hello,
How does one debug in haskell? I have a function that I could swear should
behave differently than it does, and after tracking down bugs for many
hours, I'm wondering if there's any way to step through the evaluation of a
haskell function?
The other way I would be debugging
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 07:57:18PM +, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hello,
How does one debug in haskell? I have a function that I could swear should
behave differently than it does, and after tracking down bugs for many
hours, I'm wondering if there's any way to step through the evaluation
How does one debug in haskell? I have a function that I could swear should
behave differently than it does, and after tracking down bugs for many
hours, I'm wondering if there's any way to step through the evaluation of a
haskell function?
The other way I would be debugging in an imperative
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:41:06 -0400
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does one debug in haskell?
http://www.haskell.org/libraries/#tracing
Vincenzo
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
31 matches
Mail list logo
