English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Why are backtraces (sometimes) useless
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-06-24 (16:54)
From: malc <malc@p...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why are backtraces (sometimes) useless
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Yaron Minsky wrote:

> I've had a lot of experience lately with OCaml backtraces sucking, and I'm
> not sure what's going on. We're working on a decent-sizes project (about
> 10-kloc) that uses threads and a decent amount of functorization. One thing
> we've noticed is that backtraces are almost completely useless --- generally
> speaking, they have lots of "Called from unknown location" messages, and
> almost no useful data. They often skip over functions on the call stack of
> the error in surprising ways.
> I guess the question is this: what kind of situations cause backtraces to
> drop information in the ways described above?
> Also, is there anyone out there actively using the native-code backtrace
> patches that people have come up with? I'm curious to hear other people's
> experiences.

Native code backtracing i did is constrained by the fact that only
functions that contain gc call site are included into backtrace.
I even included an example which showcases this limitation.