Thanks for the workaround; that resolves the issue for me. But this seems
very unstable.


On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Daniel Bünzli
<daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>wrote:

> > So it appears that printing an exception changes the backtrace. Is that
> > possible?
>
> I don't know about the details of backtrace recording but I suspect
> that the call to the printing function interferes with the previously
> recorded backtrace.
>
> What works for me is to immediately get the backtrace as a string [1]
> with Printexc.get_backtrace (), then print the exception and then
> print the string.
>
> Also bear in mind that sometimes native backtrace are not as precise
> as those in bytecode (tail calls and optimizations ?).
>
> Daniel
>
> [1]
> Btw. the api could really have given us a list of strings (or even of
> string * string * int * (int * int)). I already had to parse that
> string to properly format backtraces.
>