GNU bug report logs -
#42574
Probable (system vm trace) bug
Previous Next
Full log
Message #11 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Attached is a patch to fix this issue. I would like to acknowledge
RhodiumToad, who actually figured out what was causing this issue.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:23 PM Prafulla Giri <pratheblackdiamond <at> gmail.com>
wrote:
> Esteemed Maintainers,
>
> I am quite positive that what I am experiencing is not quite a bug but
> just some mis-step on my part. But I have been encouraged to report this as
> a possible bug. Thus, here it is.
>
> Context:
> Guile version: 3.0.2 (installed using guix)
> Loaded Files: simply.scm (
> https://github.com/hosoe-masaki/SimplyScheme/blob/master/simply.scm)
> Reverse function (referred to in the report, assumes 'simply.scm' has been
> loaded):
> (define (reverse wd) (if (equal? wd "") "" (word (reverse (bf wd)) (first
> wd))))
> ;; (reverse 'asdf) -> 'fdsa
>
> This started with my first wanting to run a (trace) of a recursive
> procedure as seen in Chapter 13 of the book 'Simply Scheme' (
> https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/convince-recur.html). I
> looked for a waay to (trace) in guile, but couldn't find anything except
> ,trace, which was giving a trace of everything that the function (reverse)
> called from inside of it, thus making the trace 'polluted'.
>
> I then looked around and found that a (trace) function, much like the one
> being demonstrated in the book used to exist once in guile:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/docs-1.8/guile-ref/Tracing.html
> and then found that for guile3 there was something that looked similarly
> promising: the (trace-calls-to-procedure) function (
> https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/master/guile.html/Tracing-Traps.html).
> However,
> > (trace-calls-to-procedure reverse)
> > (reverse 'asdf)
> fdsa
> produced no trace. This led me to ask around IRC for some guidance
> regarding it. Someone from #emacs suggested I try doing this:
> http://ix.io/2suZ
> When I attempted to do the same thing, however, I encountered the
> following error, at the sight of which, it was recommended that I file a
> (possible) bug report: https://termbin.com/6nm5
>
> The following `script` typescript might also be of interest to the
> maintainers (to be replayed using `scriptreplay`):
> typescript - https://termbin.com/sx5o
> timing file - https://termbin.com/73ei
> (This one records the (call-with-trace) call with both #:call? #f and
> without the specification).
>
> I must confess, I don't understand a whole lot of this. All I would like
> to say is that I have a feeling (trace-calls-to-procedure procedure)
> should have worked like (trace) as shown in chapter 13 section 'trace' in
> the book (https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ssch13/convince-recur.html);
> it just seems 'right' by the name of it. I was expecting the trace from (trace-call-to-procedure
> reverse) (reverse 'asdf) to be basically like ,trace (reverse 'asdf) but
> without the traces of all other procedures.
>
> Please do let me know if I have left out any important details. And please
> do let me know if I am doing something wrong here. I am almost quite
> certain this is just a minor error on my part, rather than a bug (and I'd
> really like to be able to trace those procedures).
>
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
[0001-Fix-return-handler-of-trace-calls-to-procedure.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 361 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.