From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The poor quality of Emacs's backtraces Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 20:51:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <3D901B62-4826-4783-B684-968E6890E75A@gmail.com> <6CB5E709-8F5A-4015-9F2C-337A87916C66@gmail.com> <909FC7C1-5473-4746-97E4-B067E6C2B271@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27780"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Mattias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 14 22:53:16 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qKPmu-00070v-80 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:53:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qKPls-0004MT-4r; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:52:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qKPlq-0004MD-B6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:52:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mx3.muc.de ([193.149.48.5]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qKPln-0005Mr-Qk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:52:10 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 21605 invoked by uid 3782); 14 Jul 2023 22:51:51 +0200 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe159b6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.89.182]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:51:51 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 15647 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Jul 2023 20:51:50 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <909FC7C1-5473-4746-97E4-B067E6C2B271@gmail.com> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.5; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mx3.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307879 Archived-At: Hello, Mattias. On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 20:06:02 +0200, Mattias Engdegård wrote: > 14 juli 2023 kl. 15.07 skrev Alan Mackenzie : > > There are only 1,728 occurrences of CHECK_* in the Emacs C sources. > > Much of the amendment could be automated. > No, we had better be careful here -- don't want to make anything slower. Aren't we always careful? I wasn't intending to make anything slower (except, marginally, the handling of errors). > > Yesterday evening, the identity of {comp-spill-lap-function} was > > very helpful in locating the buggy source. > That was yesterday. Today you wouldn't need it, because nth now > appears in the backtrace (well, most of the time). That's a rather strange notion. Whether it's "needed" or not, it's undeniably helpful. I think you agreed yesterday with my basic tenet, that Emacs backtraces are of poor quality. This is one way that quality can be raised. > > Do you have any alternative mechanism in mind for identifying anonymous > > functions in backtraces? > I disagree with the idea of that somehow being a requirement. Why? Are you working on anything which could remotely be considered a competitor for this facility; something you suggested yesterday might be the case? I have working code implementing the putting of this extra information into backtraces. Again, why do you regard this as a negative feature? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).