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

[wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2143 bytes --]

On 2023-02-02 17:35:33 +0100, Fabrizio Bianchi wrote:
> 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

Sorry, I don't speak Italian(?), so I have no idea what this message says.

> 
> 
> 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.
> >

W.

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]