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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GNAT exception traceback Date: 1997/06/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 248333053 References: <339EFAE3.26C@ccis.adisys.com.au> <33A22F37.41CBA26B@erols.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Aaron says <> No quarrel with that. At least providing the location where the exception was raised is perfectly feasible if you are willing to accept some additional space overhead in your program to store the neccessary information, and this is something that will get added to GNAT one of these days (so far it is not a feature that any of our customers have had at the top of their priority lists, so hence it is not at the top of ours). Full tracebacks are another matter. There are serious performance penalities in making exception occurrences be of arbitrary length, and also some very nasty cases. In particular, if you force allocation of exceptoin occurrences on the heap, which obviously is whaat has to be done if the information is variable length, then you really have problems with Storage_Error. There is also a question of exactly where this information gets released. The reason that exception messages can be limited in length by an implementation is precisely to avoid this kind of problem (see the AARM for further details).