Re: How to get better stack trace from a script executed via shebang?

[Fabrizio Bianchi <fabriziobianchi51@gmail.com>]

Dal terminale ho eseguito il seguente comando  apt-get install guile-3.0.
bianchi fabrizio


Il giorno gio 2 feb 2023 alle ore 17:35 Fabrizio Bianchi <
fabriziobianchi51@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> salve. Ho letto il vostro messaggio.
> Purtroppo non capisco quale sia il problema.
> Provi a sentire la community. Ho installato dal sito FSF.org il guile 3.0.9
> bianchi fabrizio
>
>
> Il giorno gio 2 feb 2023 alle ore 17:13 Wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm having a problem of getting borderline useless stack traces from a
>> script
>> executed via a shebang. For example, let's consider following script:
>>
>>     $ cat /tmp/x.scm
>>     #!/bin/sh
>>     exec guile --no-auto-compile -e main -s "$0" "$@"
>>     !#
>>
>>     (define (main args)
>>       (foo))
>>
>>     (define (foo)
>>       (bar))
>>
>>     (define (bar)
>>       (error "x"))
>>
>> When I execute it directly, the error message is not great:
>>
>>     $ /tmp/x.scm
>>     Backtrace:
>>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>       1752:10  4 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _
>> #:unwind-for-type _)
>>     In unknown file:
>>                3 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fdb1e7a2340>)
>>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>         724:2  2 (call-with-prompt ("prompt") #<procedure 7fdb1e7b2c80 at
>> ice-9/eval.scm:330:13 ()> #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
>>     In ice-9/eval.scm:
>>         619:8  1 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fdb1e7a5c80>)))
>>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>        2007:7  0 (error _ . _)
>>
>>     ice-9/boot-9.scm:2007:7: In procedure error:
>>     x
>>
>> The /tmp/x.scm file is not even mentioned once in the output. Can this be
>> somehow (command line arguments, changing the exec line, ...) improved?
>> Currently it's not very useful when I need to find out what the problem
>> was.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> W.
>>
>> --
>> There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
>> cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
>>
>