andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de
Wed Aug 18 02:43:22 CDT 2004
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:22:50AM -0400, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:03:33PM -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > Robert Shearman <rob at codeweavers.com> writes:
> > I think it's better to let the debugger take care of that. If you
> > don't want a real breakpoint you could define a custom exception to
> > tell winedbg to just dump the backtrace and continue.
> I am not 100% how the patch that Robert's proposing would work in
> practice, but I can tell you (from working with Java for a long
> time now) that having readily available backtraces is invaluable.
> I for one love backtraces, but on the other hand I don't much
> care for debuggers. Having access to them without being forced
> to go through the debuger would be much appreciated.
Wine has always had massive problems with getting easily accessible
debugging/diag support (doing debugging stuff IS hard, no question here...).
Thus I think we generally want not less, but more support, as long as it
helps (and as long as it doesn't cause a maintenance headache
or ill-maintained subsystems due to too much "choice" in debugging options...).
Since I'd think that that backtrace code should be fairly small and
self-maintaining, I'd vote for including it.
A shocking 80% of unsolicited SPAM mails are being sent by zombie Windows PCs!!!
Conclusion: use security-wise much more proactive systems such as Linux instead!
Or at least make sure to patch and upgrade all Windows PCs you encounter!
More information about the wine-devel