Re: [patch] java run-time stack trace

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz> writes:

> Why not? If ClassLoader.defineClass is showing up in a stack trace,
> then presumably there is a bug somewhere. The user wants to
> understand what is going on in order to fix that bug, so will go
> looking for the implementation.  That implementation is written in
> C++ style, so surely it makes sense to demangle it in C++ style. We
> don't _want_ to hide implementation details in a stack trace!

My take in this is:

A Java programmer who is working on a pure Java application
should not see C++ class names.

Also, an application programmer is not expected to go looking
for the implementation of libgcj classes.  These classes can
throw exceptions, even if there is no bug in libgcj!

In both cases, standard java.* classes should show up with Java output
style.

Remember, our target audience is the application developer, not the
compiler devloper (i.e. us).
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/