Another question would be where do I read about Haskell-native stack unwinder. The issue and MR Ben referenced have descriptions, but the MR didn't touch anything inside `docs` which is a bit scary. Are there any good recourses to dive into it besides the source code in the MR?
-- Best, Artem On Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 11:31 AM Chris Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to satisfy my curiosity here, when talking about backtraces here, are > you talking about a lexical call stack, or an execution stack? > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:24 AM Richard Eisenberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Ben Gamari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> At this point, for backtrace support I would rather put my money is on a >> native Haskell stack unwinder (such as Sven Tennie's work [3,4]). Not only >> is it more portable but it is also more robust (whereas with DWARF any >> single object lacking debug information would break unwinding), and is >> significantly less costly since we know much more about the structure of >> our stack than a DWARF unwinder would. >> >> >> Interesting -- this is helpful to know. I had heard about DWARF support >> for some years and thought that it would deliver stack traces. Now I will >> look for other sources. All good -- I understand how this is hard! -- and >> nice to know about. >> >> Thanks for the writeup, Ben. >> >> Richard >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
