for review: stack dumps.

[Fergus Henderson]

On 04-Mar-1998, Tyson Dowd <trd at stimpy.cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
> On 04-Mar-1998, Andrew Bromage <bromage at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > G'day all.
> > 
> > Tyson Dowd wrote:
> > 
> > > > Adding a new grade is not that hard.
> > > 
> > > Yes, but I wonder whether a debugging grade that includes a low-impact
> > > execution trace (turned off with a global flag by default) and stack
> > > traces would be a better way to do it.  Or it would probably be possible
> > > to merge stack traces with profiling too.
> > 
> > I agree with this assessment.  As the only person who still seems to use
> > the debug grade still, I find that after a stack dump, then I need to do
> > an execution trace (in the case of the compiler, Sicstus does the job),
> > then I need another stack dump...
> > 
> > Having this stuff in one grade (a sort of lightweight debug grade) would
> > help a lot.

Yes, something like that would probably be a good idea.

> I hope it will be somewhat like "-g" with gcc -- lightweight enough to
> leave on even when you don't really need it.  (Of course, the proposed
> stack traces implementation could be trimmed quite a bit, it adds a bit
> of size to executables, particularly string constants).

`-g' in gcc doesn't affect the generated code at all,
and linking modules compiled with `-g' with modules compiled
without `-g' works just fine.

If anything, it would be more similar to `-fomit-frame-pointer'.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh at 128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.