From:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id:	<199804020902.LAA20524@propus.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: Auto-symified traceback
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:02:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980401111252.2919E-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Apr 1, 98 11:17:37 am
MIME-Version:	1.0

> On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, George Foot wrote:
> 
> > I think the average DOS user would be very annoyed at having large
> > files dumped to disk.
> 
> ``Large''?  Come on, an average program seldom takes more than 20 stack 
> frames, which generates traceback that is a few KB long.  That's a single 
> cluster on most modern disks.

No. When I'm talking about core files, I mean real core files, which size
equals the memory size of the program and some. That usually means at least
1 MB.

> > IMHO proper core file support (if any) should
> > be an optional extra, possibly enabled by the environment or the
> > programmer.  Unless GDB can read them I don't expect many people
> > would be interested in it though.
> 
> Reading them is not the problem.  The real problem is how to recreate the 
> memory layout which was in effect when the program crashed.  Charles once 
> explained that this might be very hard in some cases.  Charles, could you 
> please elaborate?

Well, I'm no expert on core files, but I think they _are_ the memory 
layout when the program crashes.


Now if we decide to dump the printout to a file as well as to the screen,
as in the original(?) idea, which I like a lot. Please, don't call it 
"core". That would be really confusing as a core file is what I tried to 
explain above, and this would hamper the efforts if real core file were
to be generated in the future.


Right,

							MartinS

- Raw text -