1. Rob - what happened to the -clear option?
Rob,
In the release notes for V2.4 you noted that you could trace a bound file by
using the -clear option. Is this still available in 2.5? I can't seem to find
the equivalent since -clear is no longer supported.
Jonas Temple
http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple
2. Re: Rob - what happened to the -clear option?
Jonas Temple wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> In the release notes for V2.4 you noted that you could trace a bound file by
> using the -clear option. Is this still available in 2.5? I can't seem to
> find
> the equivalent since -clear is no longer supported.
>
> Jonas Temple
> <a href="http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple">http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple</a>
I believe the 'equivalent' would be -full_debug.
-- Brian
3. Re: Rob - what happened to the -clear option?
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
Dec 28, 2005
-
Last edited Dec 29, 2005
Jonas Temple wrote:
> In the release notes for V2.4 you noted that you could trace a bound file by
> using the -clear option.
In 2.4 you could trace a file that was shrouded with the -clear option.
It was a single large source file, with usually only a few symbols renamed.
> Is this still available in 2.5?
> I can't seem to find the equivalent since -clear
> is no longer supported.
There's no -clear, so you can't do this.
You'll have to trace the original source.
2.5 has the -full_debug feature for getting a full ex.err file,
(something 2.4 lacked) but it doesn't let you trace.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
4. Re: Rob - what happened to the -clear option?
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> In 2.4 you could trace a file that was shrouded with the -clear option.
> It was a single large source file, with usually only a few symbols renamed.
>
> There's no -clear, so you can't do this.
> You'll have to trace the original source.
>
What was the justification for removing this feature in 2.5? It seems to me
that we lost some functionality in this respect from 2.4 to 2.5.
Jonas Temple
http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple
5. Re: Rob - what happened to the -clear option?
Jonas Temple wrote:
> Robert Craig wrote:
> > In 2.4 you could trace a file that was shrouded with the -clear option.
> > It was a single large source file, with usually only a few symbols renamed.
> >
> > There's no -clear, so you can't do this.
> > You'll have to trace the original source.
> >
>
> What was the justification for removing this feature in 2.5? It seems to me
> that we lost some functionality in this respect from 2.4 to 2.5.
Yes, we lost that functionality and gained other functionality,
and we now have a single, very reliable, and consistent parser
used in the interpreter, PD-source, translator and binder.
The binder used to have its own unique, special-purpose parser
which was often found to be slightly inconsistent with
the interpreter's parser. It also required extra maintainence
whenever a change was made to the language.
Most people want to bind or shroud without their source
being readable by others. If you want others to see your source,
you can just give them your source files (though it might not be
quite as convenient as a single monolithic source file). One reason for
making a single large source file was to get a readable ex.err file
when someone crashed your program. You can get that now without
exposing any source code. Just use -full_debug.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
6. Re: Rob - what happened to the -clear option?
Robert Craig wrote:
> Most people want to bind or shroud without their source
> being readable by others. If you want others to see your source,
> you can just give them your source files (though it might not be
> quite as convenient as a single monolithic source file). One reason for
> making a single large source file was to get a readable ex.err file
> when someone crashed your program. You can get that now without
> exposing any source code. Just use -full_debug.
>
In my situation I have a user of one of my programs that cannot get past a
certain point and I have never had this problem before. This particular user
doesn't have the Eu interpreter (as do most, if not all, of my users) and I don't
want to ask he/she to install the interpreter and all related files in order to
run my program on his machine in trace.
What I wanted to do was re-bind the executable with tracing on and send him that
file to trace around the section that might be causing an issue. I can't do that
now.
Oh wait...I still have V2.4! Never mind.
Jonas Temple
http://www.yhti.net/~jktemple
7. Re: Rob - what happened to the -clear option?
Jonas Temple wrote:
>
> What I wanted to do was re-bind the executable with tracing on and send him
> that file to trace around the section that might be causing an issue. I can't
> do that now.
>
> Oh wait...I still have V2.4! Never mind.
Another option is to translate and use trace(3). You can at least see
where things go wrong. Not as useful as a real trace, of course.
Alternatively, you could bind using ooeu, and use the debugger. With the
right options, you can trace a bound file. Of course, it would require the
extra dlls be shipped, too, but the debugger is a bit more powerful than the
standard RDS debugger.
Matt Lewis
