From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,91c5b958fecf5eff X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Geert Bosch Subject: Re: GNAT exception traceback Date: 1997/06/19 Message-ID: <5ob0gb$e9a$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251480953 References: <339EFAE3.26C@ccis.adisys.com.au> <33A22F37.41CBA26B@erols.com> <33A5A600.298A@no.such.com> Organization: La Calandre Infortunee Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: ``Here is a little one: you need to have access to the debugging information from within the program if you use this approach, and indeed you will need large amounts of space to read in this debugging information (we hope that the traceback you are trying give is not for Storage_Error). But getting your hands on this information is not easy. But that's just for starters.'' Having the capability to do a full trace-back of the stack is also very useful for other purposes. For implementing "exact" garbage collection for example, having a good stack traceback is almost necessary. There are implementations of garbage collectors that are completely based on generating scanning procedures from the debugging information. I think this is a better approach for GC than either using conservative GC or changing the compiler too much. Regards, Geert