Xojo 2013r1 always includes Function Names?

Hello,
does app.includeFunctionNames work properly in Xojo 2013r1?
When I try to build an application with that property on or off I always get an app with the same exact size.
I also tried to raise a custom exception and print the stack trace: the function names are always there, regardless of app.includeFunctionNames value.
Am I doing something wrong?

By the way, should I leave includeFunctionNames off in a public release of a commercial application to “hide” serial number and protection function names?
If not including function names, how can I generate a report for debugging an unhandled exception or a crash coming from an user?

On Cocoa this setting makes no difference, you always get function names. On Windows, if you need a stack trace you should include function names.

Thanks. By the way I think this should be explained in the docs.

See case 21765.

[quote=21119:@Joe Ranieri]See case 21765.

[/quote]
Or 15743 (has a higher ranking already)
Older cases about the same topic: 4305, 5965.

[quote=22148:@me self]Or 15743 (has a higher ranking already)
Older cases about the same topic: 4305, 5965.[/quote]

Those are different issues. That’s introspection metadata.

Where is includefunctionnames found. I see this in the documentation for Xojo 3 under Runtime stack exception:

This feature only works if the IncludeFunctionNames property on the App object is selected in the Shared Build Settings.

Where is the “Shared Build Settings”?

Thanks
-Dan

In the Navigator in the “Build Settings” section.

I’ve never found an easy way to get a stack trace on Windows - is it even possible?

If this isn’t going to be fixed soon, should it be removed from the IDE until it is?

<https://xojo.com/issue/21765>

I actually want this bug fixed, but it seems wrong to show a feature that just does not work.

I know, it’s easy for me to say it here - as there’s no way that I can understand all that would be required to fix this on Cocoa and take away resources from all of the other planned features.

But I still feel the same way. :wink:

[quote=67208:@Justin Elliott]If this isn’t going to be fixed soon, should it be removed from the IDE until it is?

<https://xojo.com/issue/21765>

I actually want this bug fixed, but it seems wrong to show a feature that just does not work.

I know, it’s easy for me to say it here - as there’s no way that I can understand all that would be required to fix this on Cocoa and take away resources from all of the other planned features.

But I still feel the same way. ;-)[/quote]

I’ve fixed the Mach-O linker to only emit local symbols if IncludeFunctionNames is set. However, I have to point out that IncludeFunctionNames has no impact on introspection metadata, so there will still be information in the binary (just not available in the output of ‘nm’).