Re: EuGrid - was Runs w/Interpreter but not as .exe
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Dec 02, 2002
- 501 views
I could put in a type of trace mechanism into Win32lib that would work in bound and unbound programs. Would this be a useful thing to anybody? On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 21:02:22 -0500, <jbrown1050 at hotpop.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:29:35PM -0000, tubby.toast at ntlworld.com wrote: >> >> I rarely come out of lurk mode and have been waiting for someone else to >> suggest this and can't believe that no-one, even Rob, has. Rename >> machine.e >> to something else; rename safe.e to machine.e and run your program >> unbound. >> I have always tracked down errors of this nature this way. Not >> guaranteed >> but worth a try. >> >> chris. >> > > He already tried a similar trick, and it worked bound and unbounded i > think. > > In fact, using puts() in the right spots got it to work. > > A quick hack ... keep the puts() in the same spots, but change them to > output > an empty string. Its a kludge, but it might work. Of course, it would be > nice > to know why it worked tho. Personally, I think that odds are good if > trace() > were available in bound mode, the program would automagically work > anyways. :( > > jbrown > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Craig" <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> >> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com> >> Sent: 01 December 2002 05:47 >> Subject: Re: EuGrid - was Runs w/Interpreter but not as .exe >> >> >> > Jonas Temple writes: >> > > In this case I'm really dead in the water, aren't I? I have no way >> of >> > > knowing where or why my program is crashing. I even tried puts() >> and >> > > flush() as you suggested. When running the bound version with >> puts() >> it >> > > ran fine! I'm starting to think that if I, as a programmer, want to >> > > allow tracing of my bound program then that's my problem (unless the >> > > security issue has to do with the internals of the interpreter). >> Why >> > > can't this be an option when creating a bound program? >> > >> > I'll reconsider the security issue for 2.4. >> > Meanwhile, if adding puts() made it work, >> > then maybe adding a few more calls to puts() >> > will make it crash again. Or switching the order of some >> > includes, or just about anything. >> > >> > This is frustrating, but for C/C++ programmers >> > this is very common. They recompile their program >> > in debug mode and the crash goes away. >> > >> > Or maybe just relax, run it unbound for a while, >> > and wait for a better opportunity to debug it. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Rob Craig >> > Rapid Deployment Software >> > http://www.RapidEuphoria.com >> > >> > > > > -- cheers, Derek Parnell