Edward Z. Yang
ezyang at MIT.EDU
Thu May 12 23:46:33 CEST 2011
Thinking about this in more detail, I think this facility would be most
useful if it also contained information about what module/file the code
came from. I'm currently attempting to track down a bug in the code generator
which I know is due to a miscompiled library, and it would make my life
substantially easier if there was an easy way to narrow down possible crash
I suppose one method already available to me is to get a list of suspicious
identifiers and then cross reference these against the generated object files.
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Mar 01 05:46:01 -0500 2011:
> On 21/02/2011 01:08, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> > Excerpts from Tyson Whitehead's message of Sun Feb 20 07:14:56 -0500 2011:
> >> I believe a back trace on the actual call stack is generally considered not
> >> that useful in a lazy language as it corresponds to the evaluation sequence,
> >> That is, it is demand centric while written code is production centric
> > Yeah, such a buffer wouldn't be very useful for end-users; I'm thinking more
> > in terms of going "backwards in time" for the STG execution.
> Yes, that might be useful. However it would require compiling all the
> libraries with that option too - so it would be an internal debug option
> for use with a live GHC build, not something you could use with a
> pre-built GHC (well, you could use it, but you wouldn't get traces for
> library code).
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users