How can i read the stack frames of running process?

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

As far as I can tell, it has not yet been established that, for
example, n1256.pdf contains any incorrect spellings.

Apart from "Septermber", of course.

 

[Ernie Wright]

Either the plaintext or the PDF can be handily searched for whatever
you want to. Obviously if there are typos (I recall some bizarre
diacritical being used occasionally, and definitely some spaces where
none should be), it makes searches harder but this is not the fault of
the file format. There is no intrinsic reason (other than ludditism)
to distrust either search facility.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "instrinsic" here.

I have a couple of reasons for distrusting the search facility for PDFs
in Adobe Acrobat. On general principle, it's much easier to screw up
the programming of a search facility for a complex format, and it's also
more likely that a richer encoding will contain more errors merely by
chance. But more specifically, I have several times seen a PDF search
fail for items that I can actually see. There are any number of reasons
this can happen with PDF, none of which apply to plain text.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

 

[Richard]

It's not clear to me what you mean by "instrinsic" here.

I have a couple of reasons for distrusting the search facility for PDFs
in Adobe Acrobat. On general principle, it's much easier to screw up
the programming of a search facility for a complex format, and it's also
more likely that a richer encoding will contain more errors merely by

More spelling errors? How do you figure that out? Or are you saying the
same thing twice? ie its harder to program a search algorithm for more
complex formats? Which is as obvious as water is wetter than dry sand.

chance. But more specifically, I have several times seen a PDF search
fail for items that I can actually see. There are any number of reasons
this can happen with PDF, none of which apply to plain text.

There is one reason : that the search algorithm is full of errors. I
have never personally had a PDF search not work.

 

[CBFalconer]

From n869.txt, from the foreword:
-- __func__ predefined identifier

From n1256.pdf:
— _ _func_ _ predeï¬ned identiï¬er

The blanks between '_' chars are an effect of the font used. The
other anomaly is due to the use of some peculiar character to
represent the sequence 'fi'. So there are no incorrect spelling
identified, but one more of the penalties of .PDF publication is
exposed.

 

[Keith Thompson]

From n869.txt, from the foreword:
-- __func__ predefined identifier

From n1256.pdf:

— _ _func_ _ predeï¬ned identiï¬er

Get a better PDF reader. I get:

? __func_ _ predefined identifier

(using Adobe Reader 8.1.0 under Windows XP).

The splitting of the underscores is still annoying (probably the space
is necessary because without it each pair would be difficult to
distinguish from a single underscore), but at least it gets the
ligatures right.

Your basic point is correct, though I still find the PDF quite
convenient.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

The text version of n869 could
have contained spellings that cause problems for searching, but doesn't.

You assert.

The PDF versions of standards' drafts do.

You assert.

What alternatives the formats allow is irrelevant.

The complaint was that the pdf is harder to search.....

Let's go upthread and find the message you had a problem with:

[CBFalconer wrote:]

[Joachim Schmitz wrote:]

I'm not certain
enough of Acrobat's searching functionality to be sure that
__FUNCTION__ isn't in there.

One more reason to use the text version of N869.

Correct - CBF is suggesting that because someone have difficulties
operating the search function in Acrobat, they should switch to
using plaintext version.

There is no claim that it is an inherent property of text files that they
will contain correct spellings.

You're at a disadvantage as you're evidently unaware of the history of
this debate.

please don't start with "how do you know?" again --

Well, how do you?

and for that reason searching it in produces
better results.

In your opinion, based on your limited experience.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

It's not clear to me what you mean by "instrinsic" here.

intrinsic as in built in?

I have a couple of reasons for distrusting the search facility for PDFs
in Adobe Acrobat. On general principle, it's much easier to screw up
the programming of a search facility for a complex format,

This falls under the heading of "ludditism"...

and it's also
more likely that a richer encoding will contain more errors merely by
chance.

AFAIK the plaintext is generated _from_ the PDF. I doubt its proofread
afterwards, either.

But more specifically, I have several times seen a PDF search
fail for items that I can actually see. There are any number of reasons
this can happen with PDF, none of which apply to plain text.

While there are different reasons why the plaintext search might fail.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[=?iso-2022-kr?q?=1B=24=29CHarald_van_D=0E=29=26=0F]

Get a better PDF reader. I get:

? __func_ _ predefined identifier

(using Adobe Reader 8.1.0 under Windows XP).

The splitting of the underscores is still annoying (probably the space
is necessary because without it each pair would be difficult to
distinguish from a single underscore), but at least it gets the
ligatures right.

The problem with the spellings in this thread was that you can't search
for __func__ and find where it's referenced. (Or more accurately, that
you can't search for __FUNCTION__ to find that it's not referenced.) It's
good that your PDF reader can tell that the leading __ should not include
a space, and I'll try some alternative readers myself, but unless one can
also tell for the trailing __, I doubt searching would start working.

Your basic point is correct, though I still find the PDF quite
convenient.

So do I.

 

[=?iso-2022-kr?q?Harald_van_D=0E=29=26=0Fk?=]

You assert.

I have verified, but you conveniently chose to ignore this repeatedly.

You assert.

I have verified, but you conveniently chose to ignore this repeatedly.

I'm done here.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

I get:

? __func_ _ predefined identifier

(using Adobe Reader 8.1.0 under Windows XP).

The splitting of the underscores is still annoying (probably the space
is necessary because without it each pair would be difficult to
distinguish from a single underscore), but at least it gets the
ligatures right.

I refer to the Standard so often that, many years ago, I did a
one-time conversion of my PDF to plain text, and then as I've
referred to it over the years I've fixed up the more annoying
problems with the conversion. So it may not be possible to get a
perfect text rendering right away, but it gets better over time.

 

[Ernie Wright]

intrinsic as in built in?

Well, yeah, but as opposed to what? I couldn't tell if I disagreed with
you or not--whether the reasons I offered were ones you characterize as
instrinsic.

This falls under the heading of "ludditism"...

Or Luddism, even. You say that like it's a bad thing.

AFAIK the plaintext is generated _from_ the PDF. I doubt its proofread
afterwards, either.

Wait, I thought we were talking about the general case. If we're
talking solely about ISO C drafts, we don't have to guess about which
ones are better for searching. That's testable.

While there are different reasons why the plaintext search might fail.

There's no symmetry here. There are *more* reasons that a PDF search
might fail. What, for example, do you think is going on in this search:

http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/images/pdfsearch.gif

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

 

[Ernie Wright]

More spelling errors?
No.

Or are you saying the same thing twice? ie its harder to program a
search algorithm for more complex formats? Which is as obvious as
water is wetter than dry sand.

Evidently it's *not* that obvious.

There is one reason : that the search algorithm is full of errors.

Are you saying that's the only possible reason? There are many others.

Or are you saying that this is one reason that applies to both PDF and
plain text? Clearly there is more than one of those also. I was
specifically talking about reasons that apply to PDF and do not apply
to plain text.

I have never personally had a PDF search not work.

I have.

http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/images/pdfsearch.gif

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

 

[Mark McIntyre]

No, you misinterpret my comment. The point is that PDF searches
can only be done by a PDF reader. With text you have a choice,
such as grep, a text editor, or any other piece of text handling
software on your system.

Right - so whereas a PDF can only be searched by tool which can read
PDFs, a text file can only be searched by a tool which can read
text*.... hmm.

So you can suit your search methods to software familiar to you.

Why would anyone under the age of 30 be familiar with arcane stuff
like grep? I find it hard to find anyone under that age who even knows
that computers _have_ a commandline, and for GUI users,
double-clicking a file of any sort merely starts the default viewer
with whatever search facilities there are.


(* okay, I grant you, you could use a disk editor to search a text
file - probably, if it was 7-bit ascii, and stored in sequential
bytes...)
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I have verified, but you conveniently chose to ignore this repeatedly.

Not at all. My point is, unless you choose to abandon all reason you
must accept your claim is unprovable except by me doing my own search
or by you publishing some evidence that there are no spelling errors
in the file. I'm not sure how you could usefully do that.

You could I suppose load it into a spell checker, and carefully train
it to ignore all the specialist language, diacriticals, punctuation
marks etc etc etc. You'd need to get someone to double-check your
results, to remove any possibility of you making a minor mistake, or
overlooking an error.

So I'm betting that what you mean is "I have yet to detect any
spelling errors in hte plaintext version" - which is fair enough, but
not the same as "there are no errors, period".

Meanwhile since i've used the PDF extensively with no issues
searching, I must disconcur with your findings regarding that.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Well, yeah, but as opposed to what?

Sorry, but I pretty much assumed my audience could read english. Not
trying to be offensive, but I have no intention of defining what an
intrinsic property is.

Or Luddism, even. You say that like it's a bad thing.

From Wikipedia: An official announcement, 12th February 1811 "Any
person who breaks or destroys machinery in any mill used in the
preparing or spinning of wool or cotton or other material for the use
of the stocking or lace manufacture, on being lawfully convicted
.....shall suffer death."

Seems pretty bad to me...

There's no symmetry here. There are *more* reasons that a PDF search
might fail.

I disagree. There are *different* reasons.

What, for example, do you think is going on in this search:

http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/images/pdfsearch.gif

*shrug*
Probably there's an embedded n-dash sized space in "angle".
Plaintext searches can and do fail for similar reasons - I've seen
searches fail because of embedded (invisible) characters outside the
range 32-127.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

The problem with the spellings in this thread was that you can't search
for __func__ and find where it's referenced. (Or more accurately, that
you can't search for __FUNCTION__ to find that it's not referenced.)

Perhaps not - but you can search for UNCTI, which is highly likely to
be unique.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[santosh]

Why would anyone under the age of 30 be familiar with arcane stuff
like grep?

People who read C Standards are not likely to be a "Joe" user,
notwithstanding their age.

<snip>

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

€
†_ _func_ _
predeï¬
identiï¬

 

[Richard Bos]

Perhaps not - but you can search for UNCTI, which is highly likely to
be unique.

Or you could - perhaps? revolutionary idea, I know - check the index.
I know that this is the C Standard we're talking about, not the Perl...
erm... lack of any standard, but there _is_ more than one way to do it.

Richard

 

[Ernie Wright]

Geez, I just noticed that I typed that extraneous 's' twice in two
different posts.

Sorry, but I pretty much assumed my audience could read english. Not
trying to be offensive, but I have no intention of defining what an
intrinsic property is.

That's OK. We can come back to this if need be.

*shrug*
Probably there's an embedded n-dash sized space in "angle".

It's a bug in the Acrobat browser plug-in. Both Acrobat Pro and the
plug-in, when it's working correctly, find 80 occurrences of "angle" in
the document, including several embedded in words like "triangle."

In my experience, this kind of flakiness with PDF isn't that unusual.
If the result of a search is important, and I have both PDF and ASCII
text versions of a document, and the search result is negative in the
PDF version, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to repeat the search
using the ASCII version in a text editor.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew