Hi, On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:22:50AM -0400, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:03:33PM -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Robert Shearman <rob(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
I think it's better to let the debugger take care of that. If you don't want a real breakpoint you could define a custom exception to tell winedbg to just dump the backtrace and continue.
I am not 100% how the patch that Robert's proposing would work in practice, but I can tell you (from working with Java for a long time now) that having readily available backtraces is invaluable.
I for one love backtraces, but on the other hand I don't much care for debuggers. Having access to them without being forced to go through the debuger would be much appreciated. Dito. Wine has always had massive problems with getting easily accessible debugging/diag support (doing debugging stuff IS hard, no question here...). Thus I think we generally want not less, but more support, as long as it helps (and as long as it doesn't cause a maintenance headache or ill-maintained subsystems due to too much "choice" in debugging options...). Since I'd think that that backtrace code should be fairly small and self-maintaining, I'd vote for including it.
-- A shocking 80% of unsolicited SPAM mails are being sent by zombie Windows PCs!!! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/04/trojan_spam_study/ Conclusion: use security-wise much more proactive systems such as Linux instead! Or at least make sure to patch and upgrade all Windows PCs you encounter!