I like the idea of a -g flag. I actually think AOT will be used increasingly
in development scenarios for "code you're not changing" (but may, at some
point, want to see in a backtrace) since the temptation for internal libraries
and such is to AOT them for speed, once they're basically debugge
> Oh I see the problem then. It is true that the backtracing metadata is
> forgotten during AOT compilation. It's actually on purpose (to avoid
> sensitive information to be in the binary)
Yeah, I actually think that's great.
> but we should maybe make macrubyc accept -g (like gcc) which would
Hi Clay,
On Sep 17, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Clay Bridges wrote:
> Like some of you, I keep tabs on MacRuby and nu. I showed the nu guys
> this quote from the 0.6 release:
>
> "An interesting feature of the debugger is that it has been abstracted
> into a simple Objective-C API, of which macrubyd is ju
On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Caio Chassot wrote:
> On 2010-09-16, at 22:43 , Laurent Sansonetti wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nope, seems good :) I would however pass :"foo:bar:" instead. I believe
>> MacRuby will add the trailing : for you but it's clearer to be explicit here.
>
> Oh, actually I tried that
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Steven Parkes wrote:
>> Sorry I haven't seen this thread for a reason.
>
> No worries; I wouldn't think of complaining.
>
> I figured out what's quashing things: I don't get backtraces when I run from
> a mach executable with dylibs/bundles. I'm not sure which or bot
> Sorry I haven't seen this thread for a reason.
No worries; I wouldn't think of complaining.
I figured out what's quashing things: I don't get backtraces when I run from a
mach executable with dylibs/bundles. I'm not sure which or both of those is
causing the issue.
___
Hi Steven,
Sorry I haven't seen this thread for a reason.
Normally you should get file names / line numbers from backtraces, and if an
exception happens in a callback you should see something in your console (the
Ruby-side backtrace is the NSException message, so it should be displayed
there).
Hi guys,
A quick progress update on the upcoming 0.7 release. It's taking more time than
initially planned, but we are on good tracks!
148 tickets have been closed. There are only 4 blocking tickets left in the
tracker:
#875: defect: super dispatches aren't cached (new)
#858: defect: "rake spe
Hi Bob,
On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Robert Rice wrote:
>>> After viewing the introduction to Xcode 4 and LLVM, I am curious if MacRuby
>>> compiler could be integrated into and directly compiled by LLVM. LLVM
>>> claims to have much improved diagnostics and an enviable analysis phase. Is
>>>
Hi Caius:
I was aware that MacRuby uses LLVM runtime but I believe it is still using the
GCC 4.2 compiler infrastructure. LLVM claims to support Objective-C, C and C++
compilation with much better diagnostics than GCC.
Bob Rice
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Caius Durling wrote:
> On 15 Sep 20
Like some of you, I keep tabs on MacRuby and nu. I showed the nu guys
this quote from the 0.6 release:
"An interesting feature of the debugger is that it has been abstracted
into a simple Objective-C API, of which macrubyd is just one client.
In the future we might see other clients." [1]
Tim Bur
On 15 Sep 2010, at 00:00, Robert Rice wrote:
> After viewing the introduction to Xcode 4 and LLVM, I am curious if MacRuby
> compiler could be integrated into and directly compiled by LLVM. LLVM claims
> to have much improved diagnostics and an enviable analysis phase. Is this
> idea on the Mac
12 matches
Mail list logo
