[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:52:28 -0500 |
Since it is deep within the byte code interpreter it is difficult to
find what happened to get get the binding stack in that state.
You could disassemble the byte code and see if it is valid.
If it is valid, then debugging the byte code interpreter
might not be too hard. One could determine what the stack
level should be at certain points in the function, and add
debugging code to test the actual stack level at those points.
One could also do this by adding a bytecode instruction to test
the binding stack level, and adding a flag to make the compiler
generate these instructions. That would be a new debugging
feature in the compiler.
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Harald Maier, 2004/02/14
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Jason Rumney, 2004/02/14
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/02/14
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Jason Rumney, 2004/02/14
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Jason Rumney, 2004/02/16
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/02/17
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Jason Rumney, 2004/02/17
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/02/17
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Jason Rumney, 2004/02/17
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/02/18
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Richard Stallman, 2004/02/18
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/02/18
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Harald Maier, 2004/02/18
- Re: [h-e-w] Current word on binaries, Jason Rumney, 2004/02/18