umdh version that displays line numbers

[Dog Daze]

The documentation at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/whatsnew.mspx
does not give a history of when umdh was "optimized". I had used the
older version that did have the optimization for stack traces, but now
work at a new employer, and do not remember which version of the DTW
that does not have this optimization.

This is important, because without the optimization, the stack traces
had line numbers. When I used the newer versions, the stack traces
only have hex offsets which require some tedious decoding.

Anyone familiar with this?

[pat styles [microosft]]

Hello Dog Daze.

I looked over the page mentioned in your posting and I saw nothing about
"optimize" or "umdh" on it. So I am not clear exactly what change you are
talking about. That said, maybe we can narrow this down. Do you have a
version of umdh this lists line numbers on the same target bits that the
current version does not? I ask because now that you are working with
another employer, it seems possible if not probable that the problem is that
umdh cannot find the symbols for your new target code. Stacks with hex
addresses tend to indicate a lack of symbols or that the symbols are
stripped of the line number information. Also, I know of no changes to umdh
that would deliberately remove the old functionality you speak of.

.pat styles [microsoft]

"Dog Daze" <kkwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f56f9e34-ad02-47c1...@p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

[Dog Daze]

On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, "pat styles [microosft]" <pat.sty...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Hello Dog Daze.
>
> I looked over the page mentioned in your posting and I saw nothing about
> "optimize" or "umdh" on it.  So I am not clear exactly what change you are
> talking about.  That said, maybe we can narrow this down.  Do you have a
> version of umdh this lists line numbers on the same target bits that the
> current version does not?   I ask because now that you are working with
> another employer, it seems possible if not probable that the problem is that
> umdh cannot find the symbols for your new target code.  Stacks with hex
> addresses tend to indicate a lack of symbols or that the symbols are
> stripped of the line number information.  Also, I know of no changes to umdh
> that would deliberately remove the old functionality you speak of.
>
> .pat styles [microsoft]
>

> "Dog Daze" <kkwan2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f56f9e34-ad02-47c1...@p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> The documentation athttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/whatsnew.mspx

> does not give a history of when umdh was "optimized".  I had used the
> older version that did have the optimization for stack traces, but now
> work at a new employer, and do not remember which version of the DTW
> that does not have this optimization.
>
> This is important, because without the optimization, the stack traces
> had line numbers.  When I used the newer versions, the stack traces
> only have hex offsets which require some tedious decoding.
>
> Anyone familiar with this?

Pat,

Thanks for the reply. I was able to get line numbers with umdh
version 6.1.7015.0. Nonetheless, I distinctly recall having problems
several years ago after upgrading where I had to revert to an older
version to get line numbers.

Regards,

Ken Kwan