[m-rev.] for review: stack -lN and nondet_stack -lN

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On 15-Apr-2003, Peter Moulder <pmoulder at csse.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> I say don't bother allowing for any future mechanism to limit output to
> N lines: use the normal paging mechanism, and the user and press `q'
> after the first page if they want.

That would be nice if we had one. We don't.

> (I haven't checked that mdb already uses paging for stack output, but if
> it isn't then I think it better to add paging and no "limit to N lines"
> feature.

I agree, but as the log message said, that is a lot more work.

> Without thinking too much, my inclination is to drop the `-l' and just
> take an optional numerical argument like step etc. and like gdb's stack
> (backtrace/where/info stack) command.  This makes things easier for
> people moving between gdb and mdb.

Any others in favor of this change?

> Around the sscanf in
> trace/mercury_trace_internal.c:MR_trace_options_stack_trace, there's no
> diagnosis of negative argument.

I fixed both the uses of sscanf in the diff, and others.

I also added the new capability to the NEWS file.

Zoltan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------