From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bluestorm.dylc@gmail.com>
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3D4BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Mon, 31 May 2010 23:43:02 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuIBAAbKA0xKfVI2mGdsb2JhbACeIggVAQEBAQEICQwHESKvI4IChR0uiE8BAQMFhREE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,335,1272837600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="63723394"
Received: from mail-ww0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 31 May 2010 23:43:01 +0200
Received: by wwb22 with SMTP id 22so540398wwb.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 31 May 2010 14:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=uwYsekBr9j4uhUEgopvz6Yknz4JZyMXGvNtsmdci3qE=;
        b=f8dr1o+QHGGRqKJfgP3n+h0zUzlhkj7XGV8K/j648X6N0KU2dzFEsx83ZbQd99aERV
         NwNrEZV6bc210Mn2hPaWa8objW1/iyKNxRpQDzpuNFeKpl2IU1OvO4QW1Qf4ecSKRKjN
         ERUhenRKBCitIw+1HUeGF2rDw6snvH6frjNxw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=TKrv0lEzSTPkP0a+6RBi9ecFKAFfRVupqRq8zcpl+WDVJS7DNbBLfbE6WfvG7brMnF
         NMt+b/EPVX/jjb93Cevl9F5XKcFDbRm/nsj0V33QjjO5xgqBAKEG2l7tkOAjun5iw+Ev
         WHNMeVoSUe0xuSCM+5FHx/KEbayetxgDK+Uvk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.87.143 with SMTP id y15mr4687083wee.104.1275342170725; 
	Mon, 31 May 2010 14:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.46.199 with HTTP; Mon, 31 May 2010 14:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil7kXzh-dJ6rEohK7OvQuVqz3bc6ToEdmZTbGa2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimsqfR_SUiytZa_I74_858lm51tbzpCqR1SHCrp@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100527170122.GA28273@annexia.org>
	<87y6f0cf4p.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
	<4c040e62.9608e30a.4b34.6623@mx.google.com>
	<AANLkTil7kXzh-dJ6rEohK7OvQuVqz3bc6ToEdmZTbGa2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 23:42:50 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikVbWZYbnyM6mN7Ho8omsA6jjGLACtgJAw7f6ps@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Static exception analysis or alternative to using 
	exceptions
From: blue storm <bluestorm.dylc@gmail.com>
To: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gmail.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com>,
	caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam: no; 0.00; syntax:01 backtrace:01 printexc:01 verbose:01 exn:01 printf:01 printf:01 exn:01 printexc:01 backtrace:01 storm:98 exception:01 caml-list:01 exceptions:01 exceptions:01 

> I use a syntax extension that catches "Not_found" and raises a failure
> instead, with the source location of the "real" offending call. I do
> this mostly because OUnit catches exceptions so backtraces are of no
> use.

I have encoutered the same problem and resolved it with explicit
backtrace handling in Printexc. I use the following function wrapper :

let verbose_func func x =
    try func x with exn ->
      Printf.printf "Test error %s\n%!" (Pinrtexc.to_string exn);
      Printf.printf "%s\n%!" (Printexc.get_backtrace ());
      raise exn in