how dynamic stack approximation works
mnislaih at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 04:51:18 EST 2009
On 17/02/2009, at 9:46, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Peter Hercek wrote:
>> pepe wrote:
>>> Having (a kind of messy approximation of) a dynamic stack is
>>> possible with a variant of the cost center stacks mechanism used
>>> for profiling. But the downside is that code and libraries would
>>> need to be compiled for debugging.
>> Is there any info somewhere why the approximation of the dynamic
>> stack needs libraries to be recompiled for debugging? I thought
>> about it but I could not figure out why it would be needed. Here is
>> what I thought is the way it works:
> I have the feeling that pepe is talking about *lexical* call stacks,
> rather than *dynamic* call stacks. Cost-centre-stacks try to give
> you the lexcial call stack (but sadly don't always work properly,
> and as I've said before we don't fully understand how to do it, or
> indeed whether it can be done at all...). It probably *would*
> require recompiling the libraries, though.
Yes, I was meaning lexical call stacks, as Simon suggests. Apologies
for the confusion, Peter.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users