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.bugs Subject: bug#65622: Inappropriate suppression of backtrace on an error Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:24:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87h6ogktnp.fsf@web.de> <875y44l2pc.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26187"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 65622@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 21 15:25:10 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1qjJg5-0006Xz-Gj for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 15:25:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qjJfr-0002eA-HN; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:24:56 -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 1qjJfo-0002bM-Qj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:24:52 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qjJfo-0005Js-HH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:24:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qjJfy-0004l3-4d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:25:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Alan Mackenzie Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 65622 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 65622-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B65622.169530270018274 (code B ref 65622); Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 65622) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Sep 2023 13:25:00 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33017 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qjJfv-0004kf-HD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:24:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:64454) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qjJfr-0004kL-EN for 65622@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:24:57 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 55961 invoked by uid 3782); 21 Sep 2023 15:24:38 +0200 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15e82.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.94.130]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 15:24:37 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9455 invoked by uid 1000); 21 Sep 2023 13:24:36 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <875y44l2pc.fsf@web.de> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:270992 Archived-At: Hello, Michael. On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 03:44:47 +0200, Michael Heerdegen wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: > > The bug is now fixed. > Great, thanks [...looking at the fix...] so this had nothing to do at > all with `eval-expression-debug-on-error'? Well, not really. But having eval-expression-debug-on-error set now causes useful backtraces on the particular error. In fact, two successive backtraces, then a bare error message for a single error. This is not ideal, but IMHO better than what came before. And there was a devilish typo there, too, which took me days to find. :-( > Michael. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).