RE: haskell reify, was sequencing data structures
- There needs to be some support from the compilers/interpreters. Hugs already has this. Ghc has some of it, but I abuse the profiling system in order to get the names of constructors to be present on the heap. I'm not happy with this. Under normal compilation GHC doesn't keep constructor names around, as far as I know. However, the new debugger in GHC must do something to get names of things, so perhaps the -prof hack is no longer needed?
I believe the debugger that Robert Ennals is working on tries to infer constructor names from the symbol table of the binary. Personally, I'd like to see debugging info placed in a separate segment of the binary, so it won't be loaded with the code but can be used by a debugger. Cheers, Simon
However, the new debugger in GHC must do something to get names of things, so perhaps the -prof hack is no longer needed?
I believe the debugger that Robert Ennals is working on tries to infer constructor names from the symbol table of the binary. Personally, I'd like to see debugging info placed in a separate segment of the binary, so it won't be loaded with the code but can be used by a debugger.
I wonder whether keeping the names of data constructors in info tables is expensive? I would have guessed not. (more debugging info such as function names and src locations is likely to be more expensive however). Anyway, would it be possible/feasible for GHC to keep names in info tables all the time, not just for profiling? At least for data-constructors? Cheers, Bernie.
participants (2)
-
Bernard James POPE -
Simon Marlow