GNU bug report logs -
#6991
Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers
Previous Next
Reported by: jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 01:34:01 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Tags: fixed, notabug
Merged with 15789
Found in version 24.3.50
Fixed in version 26.1
Done: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> 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).
Ah, yes, I see it now, thanks. It's a good change, then: the new code
is more clear. I wonder why we do that, tho:
the previous code didn't have a comment, so I'm left guessing that maybe
it's that we don't want to advertise as "will stop when exiting foo"
a function which we're exiting?
> Also, as I'm looking at this, I wonder if I should replace the (prin1
> debugger-value ...) calls with (funcall debugger-print-function ...)
Sounds right.
> 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".
Good point.
Stefan
This bug report was last modified 7 years and 254 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.