From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA28091; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:00:10 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA28090 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:00:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from beaune.inria.fr (beaune.inria.fr [128.93.8.3]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f8RD09T24734 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:00:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by beaune.inria.fr (8.8.8/1.1.22.3/14Sep99-0328PM) id PAA0000005731; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:00:08 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:00:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: Damien Doligez Message-Id: <200109271300.PAA0000005731@beaune.inria.fr> To: barabh@qwest.net, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Error Reporting Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >From: "David McClain" >I am looking for some ideas on handling program error reporting for a >compiler that is built largely on CPS. Since there are no stack frames to >crawl for traceback, I have a first cut based on keeping a finite length >queue of last visited closures. It seems to me that the current continuation in a CPS program should contain the same information as the stack in a stack-based program. You have the problem of losing information on a tail-call in both systems, for example. So you should be able to do as well as a stack crawl with a "continuation crawl". Of course, this will depend on the data structure used to represent continuations, and if you use normal closures for that, you will be compiler-dependent, but again this is no worse than the stack-based case. Or am I missing something ? -- Damien ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr