Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/03/30/17:30:14
On 30 Mar 98 at 19:50, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> even if it crashed on someone else's machine. For example, imagine the
> situation where a program I wrote crashed at some other machine, while the
> sources I maintain have already changed. A symified traceback will help a
> whole lot more in this situation.
But this would require you to distribute the program with debugging
information; is this a common thing to do with a distribution?
> There are situations when this could be useful. One such case is when a
> program which you already use for a long time crashes once in a while.
> If you are unlucky enough and the properties of that program aren't set
> to not close the DOS box, the traceback is gone after you click "OK". A
> symified traceback at least lets you see where did it happen before it
> disappears for good.
Perhaps it would be sufficient to simply copy the traceback
information to a disk file; this would be a trivial change wouldn't
it? It would ensure that the traceback would be available later.
The screen message could either remain, and be a duplicate, or could
just tell the user where to find the debugging information.
> Anyway, I won't force anybody to have that feature. If it isn't
> required, I have better things to do...
I think it would be neater but functionally I don't think it would
have many advantages over the current system. If developers read the
documentation they'll find out what to do to the tracebacks; if they
include suitable documentation with their product then their users
will know to send the traceback back to the author.
My main gripe about the current system (which you also mentioned
above) is that the traceback may not stay on the screen for long
under some circumstances. It's still better than many other
compilers' efforts of course.
--
george DOT foot AT merton DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk
- Raw text -