From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: debug and backtrace Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:47:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87my4y7ert.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> References: <1252670144.24639.134.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87y6oilxwx.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1252874933 22570 80.91.229.12 (13 Sep 2009 20:48:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:48:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 13 22:48:46 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mmw05-0008I1-2u for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:48:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39008 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mmw04-0001hb-JZ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:48:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mmw01-0001hW-Fy for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:48:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mmvzx-0001hK-1f for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:48:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45892 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mmvzw-0001hH-N4 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:48:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:40224) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mmvzs-0008FE-80; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:48:32 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-147-112-99.range86-147.btcentralplus.com [86.147.112.99]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687381F66B5; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:47:52 +0100 (BST) Original-Received: from arudy.ossau.uklinux.net (arudy [127.0.0.1]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D89F38021; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:47:50 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <87y6oilxwx.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22's?= message of "Sun\, 13 Sep 2009 16\:30\:38 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:9312 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Hello! > > Mike Gran writes: > >> With the default behavior of 1.9.x, REPL debug and backtrace are broken. > > Indeed, it looks like the VM frames are ignored. I've just hit this too. So here's another example, just in case it's useful. Given a file testcar.scm that contains ((lambda _ (car 1))) 1.8.x guile --debug -s testcar.scm gives a useful backtrace: Backtrace: In unknown file: ?: 0* [primitive-load "testcar.scm"] In testcar.scm: 2: {1}* [#] 3: 2 [car {1}] testcar.scm:3:4: In procedure car in expression (car 1): testcar.scm:3:4: Wrong type (expecting pair): 1 But current (approximately speaking) Git master doesn't: Backtrace: In unknown file: ?: 0* [dynamic-wind # ..= .] ?: {1}* [with-fluid* # #f #] ?: 2* [load-compiled/vm "/home/neil/.cache/guile/ccache/1.9-0.D-LE-4/hom= e/neil/SW/Guile/testcar.scm.go"] ERROR: In procedure vm-debug-engine: ERROR: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting pair): 1 Out of interest, is this something that has worked with the VM in the past, and has somehow got broken? Or is it something that hasn't been implemented for the VM yet? (I believe it's the former, but I'm not sure.) Regards, Neil