GNU bug report logs - #24514
24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Vasilij Schneidermann <v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#24514: closed (24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:36:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:34:42 +0200
with message-id <20161012153442.GA664 <at> odonien.localdomain>
and subject line Re: 24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #24514,
regarding 24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
24514: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24514
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Vasilij Schneidermann <v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 01:14:47 +0200

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

I wrote a minimal patch that increases the overall consistency in a
backtrace buffer by printing the call stack frames as S-Expressions.

Before:

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p t)
  +(1 t)
  eval((+ 1 t) nil)
  eval-expression((+ 1 t) nil)
  call-interactively(eval-expression nil nil)
  command-execute(eval-expression)

After:

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p t)
  (debug error (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p t))
  (+ 1 t)
  (eval (+ 1 t) nil)
  (eval-expression (+ 1 t) nil)
  (funcall-interactively eval-expression (+ 1 t) nil)
  (call-interactively eval-expression nil nil)
  (command-execute eval-expression)

Now, this patch isn't perfect.  For some reason there's an extra debug
line in the second version, I've yet to investigate into the reason for
this.  The other problem is that while I can't imagine any reason to go
back to the original view of the backtrace, I cannot rule out that this
change might break other tools relying on it.  I'd appreciate any
feedback on this.

[0001-Make-backtraces-great-again.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Vasilij Schneidermann <v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com>
To: 24514-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 24.5; [WIP][PATCH] Lispy backtraces
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:34:42 +0200

Feature was fully implemented and committed to the respective branch.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.