> stacktrace printout, there is a need for such things.  But I think exception tracing is coming, I think Tango already has it.
>

Tango has it since a long time. Makes me wonder why it hasn't been ported to druntime, I thought the runtimes are quite similar.

> If a good debugger existed for dmd, you could determine the location, but I don't know of any good ones.  gdb doesn't do a very good job with D.
>

On Windows cv2pdb + Visual Studio works pretty damn well for me. Can't compare it to gdb though, since I haven't used that yet.

> Note to everyone, dmd 2.041 array allocation is broken (inadvertently by my array append patch).  You should not use this release.
>

Another big problem of the release is operator overloading.

On 11/03/10 20:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> If a good debugger existed for dmd, you could determine the location,
> but I don't know of any good ones. gdb doesn't do a very good job with D.
>
> -Steve

I've never had a problem with GDB, it's always worked fine for me, for everything I've used (including arrays, templates etc). Admittedly, I've only ever used a patched version of gdb with the D patches from http://dsource.org/projects/gdb-patches/, so it's far better equipped than a default gdb install. I've mainly used it with ldc/tango, I don't know how well dmd works with it though. I'm also guessing a lot of the D2 features aren't handled, I don't know though.

On 11-mar-10, at 22:09, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:05:51 -0500, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com 
> > wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer:
>>> Also if we get exception stack trace support, then you can immediately see
>>> everything.  It's probably better to focus on that.
>>
>> OK.
>> Do you want me to remove those two bug reports then?
>
> I think they should at least be marked as enhancements.  Without a stacktrace printout, there is a need for such things.  But I think exception tracing is coming, I think Tango already has it.
>
> -Steve

Yes tango has it, there are a couple of things that are a bit clumsy, due to backward compatibility to previous implementations, but I think that the basic approach is sound:

- separate function to trace addresses from the ones to resolve them

- separate functions to find symbolic information, and those that demangle it) from those that print it out

- try to avoid allocation (often the program is in a delicate spot when a stacktrace is requested, one should try to avoid making the position worse, and allocation in any case should be avoided when possible).

 I am willing to give the code I wrote in whatever license is needed, but I have used parts of code by h3r3tic, wm4 (winterwar), and Thomas Kühne, so if you want to use that code you should check also with them.

Fawzi

Fawzi Mohamed:
> Yes tango has it, there are a couple of things that are a bit clumsy, due to backward compatibility to previous implementations, but I think that the basic approach is sound:

A nice stack trace is a quite significant improvement when I program in D. It helps solve problems in quite less time. And I think in D2 backward compatibility can be broken, if you think it gives some advantages.

Thank you,
bye,
bearophile

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message news:hnd8hr$1q6r$1@digitalmars.com...
> Fawzi Mohamed:
>> Yes tango has it, there are a couple of things that are a bit clumsy, due to backward compatibility to previous implementations, but I think that the basic approach is sound:
>
> A nice stack trace is a quite significant improvement when I program in D. It helps solve problems in quite less time.
>

Yup. Between recently discovering tango's stack-tracing for exceptions, and the template instantition backtrace that was added to DMD not long ago, I'm one very happy D camper :)