From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Prafulla Giri Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#42574: Probable (system vm trace) bug Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:23:19 +0545 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c63cba05ab7d33e2" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28175"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: 42574@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 28 11:39:07 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@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 1k0M4h-0007Ck-7r for guile-bugs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:39:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44298 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M4g-0001I0-8c for guile-bugs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:39:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38510) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M4c-0001Hg-MA for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:45726) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M4c-0002fX-5M for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M4c-00051a-28 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:39:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Prafulla Giri Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:39:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 42574 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guile@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.159592911819282 (code B ref -1); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:39:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jul 2020 09:38:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57272 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M4D-00050w-PM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:38:38 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:46760) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M4C-00050o-1T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:38:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M4B-0001FU-Qt for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:38:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pj1-x1042.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::1042]:37638) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0M49-0002dD-Of for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:38:35 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pj1-x1042.google.com with SMTP id lx9so311656pjb.2 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 02:38:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3M0t4a2WWSrLoto7FHJKg4plV7Nyo5VFnk0sXrp/sF8=; b=ekZeFn3kTjntrqBawpMQRZA1Po+bVKYb7kez0mszFmWH/k2+ehQoE5T2ecGcwwxRxm +gGK6hmL1VXH7QEo8tZ+HYZlcEl+UqvolCfrm9eDtTUiIX13oYUxfKVgCnolCeOgiDyj PcEN9oQlL+aLGPzl/9/LPp+oo7o8L/zfqsaX7oyyn6g1QEHrS+cH259rkrsSFQQZ5VpD NkjKheOmBB01RW86Ju1PdM2QLn69a6uXzm0AOW7S+e/8qbPpKDuh3iUOWrWIp/vQQc6a RWD0YsnRBXosmtMDGkgCP1lN3EOjyhZlF6J9sgG6t3zE7agGe1Z1wvxVRdVlFDC6FbHr 8Qhg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3M0t4a2WWSrLoto7FHJKg4plV7Nyo5VFnk0sXrp/sF8=; b=YWbOzTCy6qkc5l1FE2RHFS48LXMU3QbZHYfZFnOhlwz0CeUINzwA6OompTEeyO7KJl t35Bl8zrF90m36iTv6q9OdR6W3kf4EmhVNWiOjebB6SlItsYV1cW1qukQxGlxRao1kMS mm5KdmnOxEKjsXd67l2aXVVnYE5qjRoHoTwM+rFZWorMYBKh7iES2CTEsJ0MbDfq+ZgO yCEjzbcedb+YA2UiLAtnBvT0gu4oApwul/6HIeT4ZKbtiRRp8PSWPEuaTGe8MRS3/v7S Fb77MIsUkYSxj+zfCWgmhFcCwKja1cMgT2x0pvIOyotHey5qzaNAMo6kEM4PUG8if2vV yw9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vG0EHZUF63oCOiyxoGvkIRcg2OuWfsgUm8yiK91HPuqTPHE8k sQNhiUvu660JbkOMYd6BipMSFzvtWz4T5CH6or/BRUf6Kyk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9W4z4MRvqvVEOggRK7jdcvL+zPnANppIqO80Pbw+30GrJc4wgUtWba7Mevl9ED4K3AptXN7wSm4P5mUO04NY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a416:: with SMTP id p22mr22094932plq.341.1595929111443; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 02:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::1042; envelope-from=pratheblackdiamond@gmail.com; helo=mail-pj1-x1042.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-guile" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:9846 Archived-At: --000000000000c63cba05ab7d33e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Esteemed Maintainers, I am quite positive that what I am experiencing is not quite a bug but just some mis-step on my part. But I have been encouraged to report this as a possible bug. Thus, here it is. Context: Guile version: 3.0.2 (installed using guix) Loaded Files: simply.scm ( https://github.com/hosoe-masaki/SimplyScheme/blob/master/simply.scm) Reverse function (referred to in the report, assumes 'simply.scm' has been loaded): (define (reverse wd) (if (equal? wd "") "" (word (reverse (bf wd)) (first wd)))) ;; (reverse 'asdf) -> 'fdsa This started with my first wanting to run a (trace) of a recursive procedure as seen in Chapter 13 of the book 'Simply Scheme' ( https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/convince-recur.html). I looked for a waay to (trace) in guile, but couldn't find anything except ,trace, which was giving a trace of everything that the function (reverse) called from inside of it, thus making the trace 'polluted'. I then looked around and found that a (trace) function, much like the one being demonstrated in the book used to exist once in guile: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/docs-1.8/guile-ref/Tracing.html and then found that for guile3 there was something that looked similarly promising: the (trace-calls-to-procedure) function ( https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/master/guile.html/Tracing-Traps.html). However, > (trace-calls-to-procedure reverse) > (reverse 'asdf) fdsa produced no trace. This led me to ask around IRC for some guidance regarding it. Someone from #emacs suggested I try doing this: http://ix.io/2suZ When I attempted to do the same thing, however, I encountered the following error, at the sight of which, it was recommended that I file a (possible) bug report: https://termbin.com/6nm5 The following `script` typescript might also be of interest to the maintainers (to be replayed using `scriptreplay`): typescript - https://termbin.com/sx5o timing file - https://termbin.com/73ei (This one records the (call-with-trace) call with both #:call? #f and without the specification). I must confess, I don't understand a whole lot of this. All I would like to say is that I have a feeling (trace-calls-to-procedure procedure) should have worked like (trace) as shown in chapter 13 section 'trace' in the book (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/convince-recur.html); it just seems 'right' by the name of it. I was expecting the trace from (trace-call-to-procedure reverse) (reverse 'asdf) to be basically like ,trace (reverse 'asdf) but without the traces of all other procedures. Please do let me know if I have left out any important details. And please do let me know if I am doing something wrong here. I am almost quite certain this is just a minor error on my part, rather than a bug (and I'd really like to be able to trace those procedures). --000000000000c63cba05ab7d33e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Esteemed Maintainers,

I am q= uite positive that what I am experiencing is not quite a bug but just some = mis-step on my part. But I have been encouraged to report this as a possibl= e bug. Thus, here it is.

Context:
Guile = version: 3.0.2 (installed using guix)
Loaded Files: simply.scm (<= a href=3D"https://github.com/hosoe-masaki/SimplyScheme/blob/master/simply.s= cm">https://github.com/hosoe-masaki/SimplyScheme/blob/master/simply.scm= )
Reverse function (referred to in the report, assumes 'simpl= y.scm' has been loaded):
(define (reverse wd) (if (equal? wd "") "" (word (rev= erse (bf wd)) (first wd))))
;; (reverse 'asdf) -> 'fdsa

This started with my first wanting to run a (trace) of a recursive = procedure as seen in Chapter 13 of the book 'Simply Scheme' (https= ://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/convince-recur.html). I looked f= or a waay to (trace) in guile, but couldn't find anything except ,trace= , which was giving a trace of everything that the function (reverse) called= from inside of it, thus making the trace 'polluted'.
I then looked around and found that a (trace) function, much li= ke the one being demonstrated in the book used to exist once in guile: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/docs-1.8/guile-ref/Tracing.htm= l and then found that for guile3 there was something that looked simila= rly promising: the (trace-calls-to-procedure) function (https= ://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/master/guile.html/Tracing-Traps.html= ). However,
> (trace-cal= ls-to-procedure reverse)
> (reverse 'asdf)
fdsa
produced no trace. This led me to ask around IRC= for some guidance regarding it. Someone from #emacs suggested I try doing = this: http://ix.io/2suZ
When I attempted to do the same thing, however, I encountered the followi= ng error, at the sight of which, it was recommended that I file a (possible= ) bug report: https://termbin.com/6nm5=

The following `script` type= script might also be of interest to the maintainers (to be replayed using `= scriptreplay`):
timing file - https://termbin.com/73ei
(This one records the (call-with-trace) call with both #:call? #f a= nd without the specification).

<= div>I= must confess, I don't understand a whole lot of this. All I would like= to say is that I have a feeling (tra= ce-calls-to-procedure procedure) should have worked like (trace) as shown in chapter 13 section &#= 39;trace' in the book (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/con= vince-recur.html); it just seems 'right' by the name of it. I w= as expecting the trace from (trace-ca= ll-to-procedure reverse) (reverse 'asdf) to be basically like ,trace (reverse 'asdf) but w= ithout the traces of all other procedures.

Please do let me know if I have left out any important = details. And please do let me know if I am doing something wrong here. I am= almost quite certain this is just a minor error on my part, rather than a = bug (and I'd really like to be able to trace those procedures).
--000000000000c63cba05ab7d33e2--