[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace
From: |
Andrea Corallo |
Subject: |
bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:48:28 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> mmmh, my crystal ball suggests that some (native compiled) code is
>>> calling directly a primitive (eval) without going through funcall, as a
>>> consequence no backtrace is recorded. AFAIR that's what happen with
>>> byte compiled code with primitves with assigned (byte)op-code as well.
>>
>> PS and indeed similarly what happen calling a primitive from other C
>> code.
>
> But C code can choose whether it calls `F<foo>` directly or goes through
> `Ffuncall`, whereas for ELisp code there is no such control.
Yes, still already with bytecode only in some case in Elisp code it goes
through funcall and in some it doesn't.
> It impacts debugging and profiling, in my experience.
I see, the outcome for me is that we should offer a way for the user to
force the use of funcall. Unfortunatelly ATM if one writes like
(funcall 'eval ...) it gets optimized. Maybe even a funcall wrapper
written in Elisp would be sufficient?
Andrea
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/12
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/11/13
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Andrea Corallo, 2023/11/13
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Andrea Corallo, 2023/11/16
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/17
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace,
Andrea Corallo <=
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/17
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Andrea Corallo, 2023/11/20
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/11/20
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/20
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Andrea Corallo, 2023/11/20
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/20
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Andrea Corallo, 2023/11/20
- bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Stefan Monnier, 2023/11/20
bug#67141: 30.0.50; Missing element in the backtrace, Mattias EngdegÄrd, 2023/11/20