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 <li...@richarde.dev> wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> 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 > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
