On Monday 04 August 2008 11:15:16 am Szakáts Viktor wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Probably, but there are few things, first of all > we'd need to think of this on the global level and > there are quite some more places where stack trace > is dumped. The other thing is that I'd rather like > to fully exclude source filenames from my final > executables (which is not possible since some time), > than even displaying them. Also function names should > always be enough to identify a program location > without doubts, IMO it would just mess up the > current simple dump layout. > > I'd overall vote to leave it as is now, and maybe > give it another thought after 1.0.
I'm sure that it's not appropriate to include it into the compiler, but my source code reformatting program, Click!, would resolve this problem to the correct file name by analyzing all of the .lib file headers and parsing all of the function names out of them into a database. Then, at the point where I documented where the objects came from, I would use the link file to determine which order the libraries were linked and therefore which lib (and therefore file name) functions by the same name must have come from. So, if we need that code, it's in the Click! source code. We would have to expand it to index .dll files as well as .lib files to really have good coverage. When we release 1.0.0, I'll probably remake Click! to handle all of this external documentation and code function header insertion. -- Waiting for sunspots. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
