A couple of thoughts/queries.

[Christopher Wright]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> ddbg does a pretty decent job on Windows.  Still, it gives me no stack 
> trace upon "access violation" a significant fraction of the time.  When 
> it works it's great, though.  You should definitely be using it if 
> you're on Windows.  I have also found that Windbg can sometimes get a 
> stack trace when ddbg can't.
> 
> If you're not on Windows then I presume gdb works?  I guess that doesn't 
> have any D-specific knowledge.  Support for D in zerobugs is still 
> vaporware?
> 
> Still, I'm with you.  Getting a stack trace should be easier. Especially 
> considering there have been patches to phobos floating around for a year 
> at least that already implement it.
> 
> --bb

So, given traced exceptions, you trap the sigsegv with a function that 
throws an exception? And you'd put the stuff to catch the signal in a 
module constructor so you just have to import the segfault exception module.

I just did it in the past half hour; it's not much trouble. There's just 
a portability concern. But since DMD only works on Windows and Linux, 
that's less of a concern.

As a side note, Phobos doesn't seem to have anything related to signals, 
and Tango's translation of the header is quite brief, not including 
anything to trap signals.

And now I see a post about two years old with the same stuff, only better.