GNU bug report logs - #6991
Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
Cc: lekktu <at> gmail.com, johnw <at> gnu.org, 6991 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, larsi <at> gnus.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: bug#6991: Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 08:50:47 -0400

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:

>> It does replace the functionality of debugger-make-xrefs.  But
>> `ert--make-xrefs-region' is still using `debugger-make-xrefs', and I
>> don't quite see how to remove that usage.
>
> I see.  Maybe we should move it to ert.el, then?

Sure.

>>>> +          (print-escape-newlines t)
>>>> +          (print-level 8)
>>>> +          (print-length 50))
>>> 
>>> Why let-bind print-* here rather than inside debugger-insert-backtrace?
>
>> I thought moving those inside might needlessly make the function less
>> flexible, though nobody is currently making use of the flexibility so
>> maybe it's not worth it...
>
> Hmm... I can agree with it for level and length, but I think that the
> escape-newline behavior is indispensable.

Okay, that makes sense.

>>>> +      (when (eq (car args) 'exit)
>>>> +        (setf (cl-getf (nth 3 (car frames)) :debug-on-exit) nil))
>>> 
>>> This looks like code which was moved from elsewhere, yet I can't find
>>> this elsewhere in your patch(es).  What am I missing?
>
>> backtrace--print-frame I guess?  I haven't changed the printing for
>> `backtrace', perhaps I should...
>
> Hmm... I don't see anything that corresponds to this setf in
> backtrace--print-frame.  What do the above 2 lines do, and where is the
> corresponding code in the current debug.el?  Or is that a new feature in
> your code?  (if so, where is it documented in the commit message?)

Ah, sorry, my memory of the old code got a little fuzzy, it doesn't
correspond to backtrace--print-frame (that function only contains the
code which reads the :debug-on-exit flag).  It's actually replacing the
code removed in this hunk:

@@ -301,10 +319,7 @@ (defun debugger-setup-buffer (args)
        (setq pos (point))
        (setq debugger-value (nth 1 args))
        (prin1 debugger-value (current-buffer))
-       (insert ?\n)
-       (delete-char 1)
-       (insert ? )
-       (beginning-of-line))
+       (insert ?\n))
       ;; Watchpoint triggered.
       ((and `watchpoint (let `(,symbol ,newval . ,details) (cdr args)))
        (insert

So it's another instance of operating on the backtrace frame object
directly, instead of manipulating the text after printing (i.e.,
unsetting the :debug-on-exit flag instead of erasing its representation
"*" in the buffer).

Also, as I'm looking at this, I wonder if I should replace the (prin1
debugger-value ...) calls with (funcall debugger-print-function ...)
too.  Hmm, and I probably shouldn't have moved those print-*
let-bindings at all because they could be relevant to the code printing
"frame 0".

Previous Next

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