Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:23:58 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Auto-symified traceback
In-Reply-To: <m0yJi7C-000S3DC@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980330202056.20942H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:

> 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?

This consideration applies to the usual traceback as well: it uses DOS 
I/O to print the stack frames.

> Sorry Eli, sometimes I get biased. But you must agree that most of the newbies 
> (and they really need help with symify) uses RHIDE.

I didn't think about newbies; I thought about someone who developed a 
program and wants the beta-testers (say) to provide more info about the 
crash.

> I never start programs in this way (I guess you are making it from a shortcut 
> in the W95 desktop, is that correct?).

No, they are launched at startup (which is functionally the same, but 
there is no work-around for the startup case).