On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:50:40PM -0500, Yaron M. Minsky wrote:
> Is there a reason why stack traces are available only on a crash?  I
> have a project (a distributed OpenPGP keyserver system,
> http://www.nongnu.org/sks/) that is a long-running daemon.  Unexpected
> errors are caught and logged, but unfortunately, there's no way of
> getting a stack-trace, since I don't let the exceptions kill the
> program.  This makes debugging much more difficult, and is one of the
> single largest difficulties I have with ocaml.  Is there a technical
> reason that a bytecode-compiled executable couldn't have access to the
> stack trace during execution?

Us too.

A backtrace facility for exceptions would be enormously useful.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://freshmeat.net/users/rwmj
Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment
"One serious obstacle to the adoption of good programming languages is
the notion that everything has to be sacrificed for speed. In computer
languages as in life, speed kills." -- Mike Vanier

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners