Message-Id: <m0yJghG-000S2kC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:45:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Auto-symified traceback
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980330174620.20293I-100000@is>
Precedence: bulk

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> Is it a good idea to make our traceback symify itself (if the debug info 
> is present)?
> 
> If bloating the code of each program because of this is too much, maybe
> `abort' should do that?  If that is still too much, how about a special
> debugging version of abort, for those who'd like that? 

Hmmm ... doesn't look good to me. How do you plan to implement it? calling it 
from the destroyed program?
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. 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.

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