GNU bug report logs - #65622
Inappropriate suppression of backtrace on an error

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#65622: closed (Inappropriate suppression of backtrace on an
 error)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:56:02 +0000

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

Your message dated Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:55:37 +0000
with message-id <ZQsV-W0FXuXuecv5 <at> ACM>
and subject line Re: bug#65622: Inappropriate suppression of backtrace on an error
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #65622,
regarding Inappropriate suppression of backtrace on an error
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
65622: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=65622
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Inappropriate suppression of backtrace on an error
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 13:08:26 +0000

Hello, Emacs.

On a recent master branch Emacs:
(i) emacs -Q
(ii) Insert the following into *scratch*:

(defmacro hash-if (condition then-form &rest else-forms)
  "A conditional compilation macro analogous to C's #if.
Evaluate CONDITION at macro-expansion time.  If it is non-nil,
expand the macro to THEN-FORM.  Otherwise expand it to ELSE-FORMS
enclosed in a `progn' form.  ELSE-FORMS may be empty."
  (declare (indent 2)
           (debug (form sexp &rest sexp)))
  (if (eval condition lexical-binding)
      then-form
    (cons 'progn else-forms)))

(defun foo (bar)
  (hash-if (< emacs-major-version 19)
      (car bar)
    (cons bar bar)))

(iii) Evaluate hash-if by putting point after it and doing C-x C-e.
(iv) Attempt to instrument foo for edebug by putting point inside foo and
  doing C-u C-M-x.  This throws the error: "Ignoring macroexpansion
  error: (void-function edebug-after)".
(v) Set debug-on-error to t with M-: (setq debug-on-error t).
(vi) Repeat (iv).  This throws the same error, without a backtrace.  This
  lack of a backtrace is a bug.
(vii) This backtrace is almost certainly being suppressed by a frivolous
  condition-case, whose main purpose appears to be making debugging more
  difficult.  ;-)
(viii) There would appear to be no justification for "ignoring" the error
  (void-function edebug-after).  Such error should not occur, and needs
  debugging.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: acm <at> muc.de, 65622-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65622: Inappropriate suppression of backtrace on an error
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:55:37 +0000

Hello, Michael.

The bug is now fixed.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 01:16:42 +0200, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes:

> > Hello, Emacs.
> > (v) Set debug-on-error to t with M-: (setq debug-on-error t).
> > (vi) Repeat (iv).  This throws the same error, without a backtrace.  This
> >   lack of a backtrace is a bug.

> I think you just need (setq eval-expression-debug-on-error t).

> Stumbled over the same issue ... yesterday?, or so.  Also when debugging
> Edebug.

> Maybe people would like debug-on-error -> t taking precedence over
> eval-expression-debug-on-error -> nil?  The danger is they turn both off
> by default and then forget about the second one.

> Michael.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Previous Next

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