True,  but I was of the opinion that -O0, -fno-state-hack and
-fno-full-laziness would preserve the calling structure with minimal
perturbance. Wouldn't it? Besides, I am hardly aware of any utility that generates source
level call graph/expression dependence graph; suppose one can generate a module dependency graph, but guess
its little too coarse!<br><br>-ganesh<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/4/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Stefan O&#39;Rear</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:stefanor@cox.net">stefanor@cox.net</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 05:32:31AM +0530, Ganesh Narayan wrote:<br>&gt; [1] Am presently constructing the call graphs from disassembled application<br>&gt; binaries; resultant graph includes ghc runtime library calls.<br>
<br>Not necessary a good idea - Haskell&#39;s purity gives the compilers great<br>license to reorder and rearrange code, and the laziness causes the<br>dynamic call graph to differ wildly from the static call graph even<br>
without without optimizations.&nbsp;&nbsp;GHC&#39;s use of a private stack with very<br>weird return conventions probably isn&#39;t helping either!<br><br>Stefan<br><br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
<br><br>iD8DBQFHBDCVFBz7OZ2P+dIRAnogAJ9m8Vv/NjUg50bJYdAGl2lzJQZMIwCgsXdq<br>mwdCgw1AO7KMBVkKTXjymAM=<br>=+aCh<br>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br><br></blockquote></div><br>