GHCi debugger status
phercek at gmail.com
Tue Nov 25 08:11:45 EST 2008
Simon Marlow wrote:
> A similar argument applies to keeping the dynamic stack. The problem
> with the dynamic stack is that it doesn't look much like you expect, due
> to tail-calls.
Do you think people expect the tail-calls to add a stack frame to the
dynamic stack or is there something more complicated?
I would expect a tail-call to overwrite the last stack frame on the
dynamic stack - just like imperative loops, which is what they
correspond to. Dynamic stack should correspond closely to the stack
which overflows when we get the "stack overflow exception". That is what
I would expect. If somebody wants the history of tail-calls he can check
the trace information, which should not be a problem especially if some
filtering (like tracelocal) is possible.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users