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 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 #) > > In ice-9/boot-9.scm: > > 724:2 2 (call-with-prompt ("prompt") # > ice-9/eval.scm:330:13 ()> #) > > In ice-9/eval.scm: > > 619:8 1 (_ #(#(#))) > > 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.