In many scheme/lisp dialects, when an error occurs, a "recursive repl" is popped up ... one can execute scheme/lisp code at the frame where the error occured, and go up/down the stack.
Is it possible to do something similar to this in lua?
Thanks!
See debug.debug.
Related
When building an application in Visual Studio. It shows the following error when exceeding the error count
fatal error C1003: error count exceeds 100; stopping compilation
Is there a way to increase the error limit?
This limitation is hardcoded. Here is the post from the MSFT employee in the microsoft.public.vsnet.general group dated 2006 (look for 'Fatal Error C1003'):
Hi,
Unfortunately this 100 limitation is
hard coded and cannot be changed. It's
just inpractical to keep all errors
information around since one error may
cause other several errors.
I hope you understand the rational
behind this design by our product
team. However, if you still have
concerns about this, please feel free
to submit your feedback at
http://connect.microsoft.com/Main/content/content.aspx?ContentID=2220
which is monitored by our product
team. Thank you for your
understanding.
Sincerely, Walter Wang
(waw...#online.microsoft.com, remove
'online.') Microsoft Online Community
Support"
I don't think so. VS basically reports all errors it encounters during compilations. There might be some erroneous parts of the code that make the compiler getting caught in an infinite "error" loop.
The limit was implemented to avoid that. In most cases the 100 errors you get are just the same error reported over and over again. What would be the sense in increasing the number of repetitions?
Maybe you can post the code snippet where the error occurs first, so we can help you fix it.
I believe that it is a hard-coded limit, so no.
As others have commented, it's difficult to understand what you want to achieve by this.
At the end of the day, you'll have to fix them all, so get stuck in and start fixing them. Eventually, you'll get below 100, and you can start counting them.
It is not normally valuable to report the actual number of errors when this occurs. Most of the time, when you get C1003, it's actually only a few real errors, leading to a massive chain of other errors.
(e.g.)
If there is an error in a .h file, that error will be reported in every .cpp file that #includes it.
If there is an error that prevents any kind of identifier being defined (e.g. a class, variable, method name), then every time you try to use it later on, an error will be reported.
Workaround to reduce number of reported errors:
rename cl.exe to cl-orig.exe
roll your own cl.exe that launches cl-orig.exe, capturing its stdout / stderr
parse stderr, looking for error messages and counting them
breaks after first n errors
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682499(v=vs.85).aspx for some hints.
I also have a project like this: sometimes Visual Studio decides there is a lot to do, emits 100 really irrelevant messages about other parts of the solution and aborts the build because it reached the message limit without working on the project I'm interested on.
The workaround we have found is to use msbuild to build the solution from a command prompt: the Use MSBuild walkthrough outlines the steps. msbuild outputs all messages to the console and once the build completes we can work and debug again in Visual Studio. Not ideal, but it lets us complete the task at hand.
Panic! seems to be the right way to stop a program while in development mode. But one should not ship a program that displays such a message for an excepted error:
thread '<main>' panicked at 'error message: ()', x.rs:785
Is there any way to exit a program early with an error code, without displaying developer oriented text? I could use process::exit but I've read that it does not perform cleanup, so what should we use?
panic! is not the right way to stop a program.
Its sole purpose is to abort when everything is about to go south and you have no way to recover. If you are expecting some wrong behaviour anywhere, use Result and recover from that behaviour by printing a nice message and cleanly exiting.
If you have panic!s or assert!ions in your code and they trigger, the message you showed is the only correct thing that should be displayed, because it's a bug in your code and there's no clean way to recover from a bug.
Note that panic! does not necessarily perform cleanup. If you panic, and another panic happens in a Drop impl, the program simply aborts. Also there's a setting for rustc that turns off the cleanup on panic and simply aborts on the panic!.
I've come across the below error. This error persists even if I try to use my code on another machine with same version of Xcode 4.2 final. Can any one help?
Console Output
error while killing target (killing anyway): warning: error on line 2184 of "/SourceCache/gdb/gdb-1708/src/gdb/macosx/macosx-nat-inferior.c" in
function "void macosx_kill_inferior_safe()":
(os/kern) failure (0x5x) quit
The debugger is crashing. Crashing debuggers are a world of pain.
Looks like you are using gdb. Try moving to lldb and see if that works around it.
If that doesn't, try nuking your derived data directory as it may be that you have a corrupt symbol that is causing the debugger to crash.
I have no idea what the error is, but googling for the file produces macosx-nat-inferior.c which describes itself as being a part of GDB. So assuming it is the same file as on your computer, then diving in to it may help solve your issue. However that message appears on line 1981 of the file I found .. so I doubt it is the same one as on your computer. But issues with GDB sound weird.
Here My problem is when Im running my build in the device sometimes my application is terminated at middle with displaying the message in the console as:
Program received signal: "0".
warning: check_safe_call:could not restore current frame
Can anyone help why this was happening like this? Anyones's help will be appreciated.
Thank you,
Monish Kumar.
This is very possibly caused by an infinite loop which is causing you to run out of memory and the debugger can't unwind the stack because there's too much recursion.
Set a breakpoint in the debugger at some point directly preceding the crash and then step through the operations in your code to find where the problem is occurring.
It looks like crash caused by low memory. Try to implement -applicationDidReceiveMemoryWarning: in your application delegate and free unnecessary resources there.
I've been mostly working with VB.Net for over a year and just noticed this
Am I going insane, or does VB.Net NOT have an "Unreachable code" warning?
The following compiles quite happily with nary a warning or error, even though there is a return between the two writeline calls.
Sub Main()
Console.WriteLine("Hello World")
Return
Console.WriteLine("Unreachable code, will never run")
End Sub
Am I missing something? Is there some way to switch this on that I can't find.
If not, is there a good reason for its omission? (i.e. or am I right in thinking this is a woeful state of affairs)
Forgive the air of rant about this question, it's not a rant, I would like an answer.
Thanks
I've raised this on MS Connect, as bug# 428529
Update
I received the following from the VB Teams program manager
Thanks for taking the time to report
this issue. The compiler has limited
support for this scenario, and as you
point out we don't have warnings for
unreachable code. There are some
scenarios that our flow analysis
algorithm does handle, such as the
following:
Sub Main()
Dim x As Integer
Return
x = 4
End Sub
In this case you'll get a warning that
x has never been assigned. For the
case you mentioned however we'll have
to look at implementing that for a
future release.
My guess is that it's an oversight in the compiler. Flow control is a very difficult problem to get correct in any language, but especially in a language like VB which has so many different flow control mechanisms. For instance,
Exceptions
Goto
On Error (Resume, Goto, etc ...)
Exit calls
If you feel strongly about this issue, please file a bug on Connect. We do take bugs filed via Connect very seriously and do our best to fix as many as possible.
They mention this in the following post:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/210187/usage-statistics-c-versus-vb-net
See the last post.
I guess you could use FXCop to check your code instead or get a copy of Resharper from:
http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/
I'd like to address Jared's answer.
Most of the issues he brings up are not problematic for data flow analysis.
The one exception is "On Error / Resume". They mess up data flow analysis pretty bad.
However, it's a pretty simple problem to mitigate:
If more than one "On Error" statement is used in a method, or the "Resume next" statement is used, you can just turn off data flow analysis and report a generic warning. A good one might be something like "On Error / Resume are deprecated, use exceptions instead." :)
In the common case of one only "On Error" statement and no "resume" statement, you can pretty much do normal data flow analysis, and should get reasonable results from it.
The big problem is with the way the existing DFA code is implemented. It doesn't use a control flow graph, and so changing it ends up being really expensive. I think if you want to address these kinds of issues you really need rip out the existing DFA code and replace it with something that uses a control flow graph.
AFAIK, you are correct that VB.NET does not give you a warning. C# does though.