bt in traces

[Fabian Cenedese]

>this would be as intrusive as using the debugger (I assume that the running process would be in charge of printing the backtrace, or an external process - like a debugger - would print the backtrace, while the program is stopped (or after copying the stack for instrospection, which dbghelp doesn't provide btw))
>Fabi (another thought), did you try to add DbgBreak(); in the function itself and use bt in the debugger ?

That may work (I haven't tried) but would only be useful for some cases. The
one where it didn't stop on the bp would be one. But there are others. If I
want to look at a function which is called many times (hundreds) and I'm
only interested in the one time it fails I don't want to 'cont' as many times.
Second is that winedbg catches every exception, handled or not. For a
small test program this is no problem. But for bigger real life apps with
exceptions and internal handling this makes them almost unusable.
Always falling back to winedbg and 'pass' or 'cont' is not really running
a program. Winedbg is ok, I also use it when I can. But most of the
time debug logs (with some own messages) are more helpful to me.

bye  Fabi