GNU bug report logs - #41988
28.0.50; Edebug unconditionally instruments definitions with &define specs

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 41988 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#41988: 28.0.50; Edebug unconditionally instruments definitions with &define specs
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:16:16 -0400

>> [ Disclaimer: I don't understand the precise semantics of `gate`, tho
>>   I do remember using it once via trial-and-error.  So maybe it wouldn't
>>   prevent it, but if doesn't prevent it, then it doesn't likely "fix"
>>   our problem ;-)  ]
> AIUI the semantics of "gate" aren't that complex, it just means "don't
> backtrack beyond this point."

[ Yes, that's the part I understand.  But it's not clear where
  backtracking is possible and where it's not.  At least, the code that
  I saw in edebug.el didn't match my expectations back when I looked at
  it, hence my not feeling quite sure what the semantics are (and/or
  should be).
  IIRC the issue was that the scope of that effect wasn't clear: if you
  think of Prolog's cut, its effect is local to a particular definition,
  whereas I think the scope of `gate` is not nearly as clear because
  there isn't such a notion of "definition".  ]

>> >> I'm not sure it's worth the trouble: the pain seems higher than the gain.
>> > This bug is rather nasty when it's hit (it took me quite a while to
>> > debug/hunt down),
>> Could you remind me what was this nasty outcome?
> The original bug report was
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=41853 (extremely subtle
> bug due to mismatch between frequency and offset vector).

Thanks, that's worst than I thought indeed.

>> > so I think it would be reasonable to prevent.  We already
>> > disable backtracking for literal symbols, and I think forms that require
>> > multiple &define forms with backtracking should be exceedingly rare and can
>> > be rewritten as you did with cl-flet.
>> Emitting a warning would be much more helpful than just silently
>> "cut"ting the backtracking.
> A gate isn't silent, it would cause a hard error in this case.

What I meant is that a gate would just make the old cl-flet spec fail in
most cases, with no explanation why that spec now fails even though it
worked in the past.


        Stefan

Previous Next

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