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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#6991: closed (Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:14:02 +0000

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

Your message dated Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:43:00 +1030
with message-id <8760xalrjn.fsf <at> gnus.org>
and subject line Re: bug#6991: Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #6991,
regarding Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
6991: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6991
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

From: jidanni <at> jidanni.org
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:35:10 +0800

Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers.
* It is unreadable.
* It will cause problems when sent via email. Even if one runs col(1)
and strings(1) on it, nobody can read it anyway.
* The mountain of gobbledygook makes people reading give up on trying to help.
E.g., http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.w3m/8695

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

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: John Wiegley <jwiegley <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu <at> gmail.com>, John Wiegley <johnw <at> gnu.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 6991 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 6991-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#6991: Please keep bytecode out of *Backtrace* buffers
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:43:00 +1030

John Wiegley <jwiegley <at> gmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:
>
>> What's more, _users_ currently do the work by hand, so it must be possible
>> to at least partly (probably fully) get it done by program. If users can
>> manually (time-consuming and error-prone) redact the byte-code when pasting
>> a backtrace into a mail etc. then that can be done by program.
>
> Drew, can you show me what it will look like to have the elision performed?
> Sometimes the byte-code contains strings that give me a clue as to the
> problem, so I'm wondering what will disappear if this is fixed.

I thought the post I made yesterday showed the difference?  And it's
that the byte codes themselves get replaced by "..<bytecode>..", and not
the symbols (etc.) that are useful for figuring out backtraces.

But the patch was backwards -- it inhibited it outside of backtraces
instead of in backtraces.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

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