[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Stack with a tail call is missing function names?
- From: Paul K <paulclinger@...>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:28:01 -0700
Yes, that would work, but I'm developing a stack viewer, which should
work with any type of stack content and can only do it post factum
(when the call is already made and without any code modifications). I
added a check for this case, but wasn't sure if this is the best that
can be done in this case.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Starks <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Andrew Starks <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Paul K <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Cosmin,
>>> Yes, that's my case.
>>> Does anyone know if this is a known limitation that is not going to be fixed?
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Cosmin Apreutesei
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> maybe this answer could help?
> If you're just debugging and don't need the tail call, you can
> surround your function call with (f()), and them remove it when you're
> done debugging... unless you're overflowing the stack and that's why
> you're doing it that way. :)
> Of course +0 works too...
> Best Regards,
> Andrew Starks