Em 21/02/2012, às 18:35, Martin escreveu:
> On 21/02/2012 20:28, Everton Vieira wrote:
>> Em 21/02/2012, às 14:20, Martin escreveu:
>>
>>> On 21/02/2012 16:14, leledumbo wrote:
> So the savest way to ensure that BackTraceStrFunc returns more than just
the address us to use "-gl"
On 21/02/2012 20:28, Everton Vieira wrote:
Em 21/02/2012, às 14:20, Martin escreveu:
On 21/02/2012 16:14, leledumbo wrote:
So the savest way to ensure that BackTraceStrFunc returns more than just
the address us to use "-gl"
I think I'm not clear enough to say that I have used -gl for this,
Em 21/02/2012, às 14:20, Martin escreveu:
> On 21/02/2012 16:14, leledumbo wrote:
>>> So the savest way to ensure that BackTraceStrFunc returns more than just
>> the address us to use "-gl"
>>
>> I think I'm not clear enough to say that I have used -gl for this, and I
>> don't get the line info
On 21/02/2012 16:14, leledumbo wrote:
So the savest way to ensure that BackTraceStrFunc returns more than just
the address us to use "-gl"
I think I'm not clear enough to say that I have used -gl for this, and I
don't get the line information. I've tried this on 2 places: ExceptProc and
TAppl
Am 20.02.2012 23:37 schrieb "leledumbo" :
>
> > The resolution of file and address can only be done if your code is a)
> compiled with debug info and b) some code is available that can
> translate the debug info to the output. The first is done by "-g", while
> the second is done by adding the "l"
