Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/03/30/13:56:24
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
>
> > How do you plan to implement it? calling it from the destroyed program?
>
> If you mean calling `symify.exe', then no, I didn't think about that. I
> thought about copying some of the `symify' code into the library
> function which prints the traceback. The code is actually quite simple.
But then the overhead won't be so small, and the same applies: What if the
program destroys some function needed for that making the the GPF even worst?
In my editor I save all the un-saved stuff when I get the signal, until now I
got only benefits, but I'm not so sure about how secure is it. The feature can
be disabled from the command line.
> > If the program crashes in the machine of an end user (and beleive me I saw tons
> > of djgpp programs distributed with debug info) it won't help.
>
> It was meant as an aid to someone who is debugging the program on the same
> machine where it was developed.
In this case the user can use RHIDE or other tool to get it automatically, a
simple batch file can do it (looking at the return code).
> But I also don't understand why are you
> saying that it won't help on other machines.
I never stated: other machine, I said: the end user.
> `symify' doesn't need
> sources to print the info, so the file names and line numbers will be
> printed even if the sources are long gone, or were never installed. It is
> much easier to deal with a crash report when it has this info attached,
> 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.
1) I supposed you tried to make it using symify so the user must have symify.
2) I ever have copies of the last 3 versions with debug info, so I don't need
to force the user to download a file with the debug info. My editor is 5Mb with
debug info and only 327Kb without it (and compressed). I preffer to run symify
on my copy.
> > Experimented
> > users can run symify or use a custom methode and RHIDE users (a lot of newbies)
> > gets it from RHIDE (It traps the GPF and shows the translated trace back). So
> > doesn't look to be very needed.
>
> You seem to only think about RHIDE users ;-).
Sorry Eli, sometimes I get biased. But you must agree that most of the newbies
(and they really need help with symify) uses RHIDE.
> There are situations when this could be useful.
I don't doubt it. Is just that the code bloat isn't good and the cases where it
could help aren't so much.
> 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.
I never start programs in this way (I guess you are making it from a shortcut
in the W95 desktop, is that correct?).
> Anyway, I won't force anybody to have that feature. If it isn't
> required, I have better things to do...
Perhaps it could be done as an add-on, I mean: It's included by request of the
programmer. For example with a #define before some header (expanded to a symbol
that forces the module ...). But not as unconditional code.
SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013
- Raw text -