GNU bug report logs - #48412
tracepointing and backtracing in the REPL sometime hang

Previous Next

Package: guile;

Reported by: randomlooser <at> riseup.net

Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 08:22:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: lloda <lloda <at> sarc.name>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 48412 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 48412 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#48412; Package guile. (Fri, 14 May 2021 08:22:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to randomlooser <at> riseup.net:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guile <at> gnu.org. (Fri, 14 May 2021 08:22:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adriano Peluso <randomlooser <at> riseup.net>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: tracepointing and backtracing in the REPL sometime hang
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 09:02:14 +0200
in Guile 3.0.5 installed with Guix (as a package manager on top of
Ubuntu)

In a file I have this simple procedure

(define (f n)
  (if (< n 3)
      n
      (+ (f (- n 1))
	 (* 2 (f (- n 2)))
	 (* 3 (f (- n 3))))))


it's a variation of the one calculating the Fibonacci numbers, from an
exercise of the SICP (1.11)

At the REPL, I load the file normally

scheme@(guile-user)> (load "1.11.scm")

Now, I can trace this procedure

scheme@(guile-user)> ,trace (f 4)
trace: |  (f 4)
trace: |  |  (f 3)
trace: |  |  |  (f 2)
trace: |  |  |  2
trace: |  |  |  (f 1)
trace: |  |  |  1
trace: |  |  |  (f 0)
trace: |  |  |  0
trace: |  |  4
trace: |  |  (f 2)
trace: |  |  2
trace: |  |  (f 1)
trace: |  |  1
trace: |  11


But I can't tracepoint it

scheme@(guile-user)> ,tp f
Trap 0: Tracepoint at #<procedure f (n)>.
scheme@(guile-user)> (f 4)
Trap 0: (f 4)
Trap 0: |  (f 3)
Trap 0: |  |  (f 2)
ice-9/boot-9.scm:1669:16: In procedure raise-exception:
Wrong number of arguments to #<procedure return-handler (frame depth
values)>

Entering a new prompt.  Type `,bt' for a backtrace or `,q' to continue.
scheme@(guile-user) [1]> 


and now I can't even print a backtrace

scheme@(guile-user)> (f 4)
Trap 0: (f 4)
Trap 0: |  (f 3)
Trap 0: |  |  (f 2)
ice-9/boot-9.scm:1669:16: In procedure raise-exception:
Wrong number of arguments to #<procedure return-handler (frame depth
values)>

Entering a new prompt.  Type `,bt' for a backtrace or `,q' to continue.
scheme@(guile-user) [1]> ,bt
In /home/adriano/Documenti/SICP/1.11.scm:
     64:9  4 (f 4)
     64:9  3 (f 3)
While executing meta-command:
In procedure frame-local-ref: Argument 2 out of range: 1
scheme@(guile-user) [1]> 


and now I can't even trace no more

scheme@(guile-user) [1]> ,q
scheme@(guile-user)> ,trace (f 4)
While executing meta-command:
Wrong number of arguments to #<procedure return-handler (frame depth
values)>
scheme@(guile-user)> 






Information forwarded to bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#48412; Package guile. (Fri, 14 May 2021 14:52:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 48412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adriano Peluso <randomlooser <at> riseup.net>
To: 48412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: duplicate ?
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 11:13:52 +0200
I just noticed someone sent a patch that seems relevant here

It's in #43102

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=43102





Information forwarded to bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#48412; Package guile. (Sun, 16 May 2021 16:09:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #11 received at 48412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Adriano Peluso <randomlooser <at> riseup.net>
To: 48412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: duplicate ?
Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 09:09:58 +0200
Il giorno ven, 14/05/2021 alle 11.13 +0200, Adriano Peluso ha scritto:
> I just noticed someone sent a patch that seems relevant here
> 
> It's in #43102
> 
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=43102

I applied this patch

It does solve the issue, it seems

Now I can tracepoint my procedure





Reply sent to lloda <lloda <at> sarc.name>:
You have taken responsibility. (Wed, 19 May 2021 19:34:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to randomlooser <at> riseup.net:
bug acknowledged by developer. (Wed, 19 May 2021 19:34:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #16 received at 48412-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: lloda <lloda <at> sarc.name>
To: randomlooser <at> riseup.net
Cc: 43102-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 48412-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#48412: duplicate ?
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 21:34:26 +0200
Patch applied in f9f55b9ce74898d1b0a77dcc9b4aa260e5cd208d. Thanks!


> On 16 May 2021, at 09:09, Adriano Peluso <randomlooser <at> riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> Il giorno ven, 14/05/2021 alle 11.13 +0200, Adriano Peluso ha scritto:
>> I just noticed someone sent a patch that seems relevant here
>> 
>> It's in #43102
>> 
>> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=43102
> 
> I applied this patch
> 
> It does solve the issue, it seems
> 
> Now I can tracepoint my procedure
> 
> 
> 
> 





bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:24:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

This bug report was last modified 2 years and 314 days ago.

Previous Next


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