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#67455: (Record source position, etc., in doc strings, and use this in *Help* and backtraces.) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:03:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: 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="26649"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, Eli Zaretskii , 67455@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 25 22:04:30 2024 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 1rorUc-0006li-5e for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:04:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rorUD-00006a-V8; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:04:06 -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 1rorUB-00006N-4q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:04:04 -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 1rorUA-0000uU-Sq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:04:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rorU9-0001Fx-PU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:04:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Alan Mackenzie Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:04:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 67455 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 67455-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B67455.17114006114645 (code B ref 67455); Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:04:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 67455) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Mar 2024 21:03:31 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36393 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rorTe-0001Cr-VM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:03:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:47391) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rorTc-0001CT-QC for 67455@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:03:29 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 20222 invoked by uid 3782); 25 Mar 2024 22:03:23 +0100 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pd953a51e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.83.165.30]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:03:23 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 481 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Mar 2024 21:03:22 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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:282077 Archived-At: Hello, Stefan. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to review my branch. On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 14:23:50 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> The point is that `byte-compile-in-progress` will be non-nil during > >> those loads, so you can't use this variable to get the information you need. > > Yes. How about binding it to nil around `load' and recursive edits, and > > possibly one or two other things? > You mean trying to enumerate all the places we can think of where we > know that compilation is not taking place? Yes. > That sounds rather ugly. I'd rather first try and define precisely > what is we mean by "compilation in progress". That the byte compiler is active, and all symbols (bar nil) get positioned. Contrast this with, say, loading a .el file, where only some symbols get positioned. An alternative might be to pass an &optional boolean argument meaning "preserve positions on symbols". > I see the same problem with: > DEFVAR_LISP ("defining-symbol", Vdefining_symbol, > doc: /* The symbol currently being defined by a defining form. > This variable is bound in the read-eval-print loop and certain > high-level functions in the byte compiler. It is set to a value by > functions and macros such as `defun', `defmacro', and `defvar'. */); > Lots and lots of things can happen "during the definition" of a form, > including definition of lots of other forms. So I think we'd need to > define much more precisely what you meant by "currently". > In addition, a definition is "intemporal" (it's declarative), so > "currently being defined" is almost like an oxymoron. By "currently", I mean that a defining form such as defun or defvar has commenced, but not yet terminated; its functions currently occupy stack frames. > I'm trying to understand your code, but I clearly lack a high-level > overview of the approach you decided to takes, so I don't understand > what's going on there. Sorry about that. A quick summary: defined symbols (and lambda) get positioned by the new reader function read-positioning-defined symbols. The new declare clause defining-symbol marks a macro such as defun or cl-defgeneric as a macro which defines such symbols. The conversion of these SWPs into position structures in doc strings happens at macro expansion time, through byte-run-posify-lambda-form. > Is that branch trying to provide function-position for compiled > functions only, for interpreted functions only, or both? It not only tries, but succeeds (modulo remaining bugs) in providing posification for both interpreted and compiled functions. > If both, could you split it into two, then? I'm not sure that would be possible or sensible - both use a common approach. > AFAICT doing it only for compiled functions should be significantly > simpler than for interpreted functions, so it would be a good > stepping stone. The work has already been done, and there is working code. Just as a matter of interest, the branch runs the test suite without errors (not counting "expensive" tests ). > On the cosmetic side, you have way too much code in `byte-run.el`. > I think most of this code can be moved elsewhere, e.g. somewhere where > backquote can be used Yes, I noticed this, too. A lot of the bulk is for diagnostic functions for SWPs, and these can eventually be deleted. Or possibly moved into a new file with-pos.el to be loaded before byte-run.el. byte-run--posify-defining-symbol, the function with the extreme hand expansion of backquotes is used as a declare clause handler, and is needed by defun. Hence it couldn't really be moved to after the loading of backquote.el. There are some additional functions which batch-posify functions and variables defined before the posification mechanism is in place. This must be done ASAP, for the benefit of backtraces in early bootstrap. > Stefan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).