GNU bug report logs -
#26107
Inaccurate location info for unbound-variable errors
Previous Next
Reported by: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:04:02 UTC
Severity: minor
Done: Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
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 26107 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 26107 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
:
bug#26107
; Package
guile
.
(Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
.
(Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:04:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi!
In 2.1.8/2.2.0, walking up the stack to find the origin of an unbound
variable error yields inaccurate location info. Consider this:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(list 'a
(symbol->string 'b)
(symbol->string 'c) ;← unbound variable error reported here
(FOO 'bar) ;… instead of here
3
4)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
We get:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guild compile -t value t.scm
Backtrace:
18 (apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 1312aa0>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
710:2 17 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
619:8 16 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 13ba1e0>)))
In /gnu/store/4xir0dlzxl7h5v7va9rz8x3mvarlv2fd-profile/bin/guild:
72:17 15 (main _)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
640:9 14 (for-each #<procedure 128be40 at scripts/compile.scm:248:14 (file)> ("t.scm"))
In scripts/compile.scm:
251:26 13 (_ _)
In system/base/target.scm:
57:6 12 (with-target _ _)
In system/base/compile.scm:
152:6 11 (compile-file "t.scm" #:output-file _ #:from _ #:to _ #:env _ #:opts _ #:canonicalization _)
43:4 10 (call-once _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
846:4 9 (with-throw-handler _ _ _)
In system/base/compile.scm:
59:11 8 (_)
155:11 7 (_ #<closed: file 160a0e0>)
224:14 6 (read-and-compile _ #:from _ #:to _ #:env _ #:opts _)
255:6 5 (compile _ #:from _ #:to _ #:env _ #:opts _)
183:32 4 (compile-fold _ #<tree-il (call (toplevel list) (const a) (call (toplevel symbol->string) (const b)) (call (toplevel symbol->string) (const c)) (call (toplevel FO…> …)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2309:4 3 (save-module-excursion #<procedure 1345d60 at language/bytecode/spec.scm:33:9 ()>)
In language/bytecode/spec.scm:
35:19 2 (_)
In t.scm:
3:6 1 (_) ;← incorrect line number! (expected line 4)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
757:25 0 (dispatch-exception _ _ _)
ice-9/boot-9.scm:757:25: In procedure dispatch-exception:
ice-9/boot-9.scm:757:25: In procedure module-lookup: Unbound variable: FOO
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
It Would Be Nice if we could get the right location info here, though I
understand this is a corner case.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
:
bug#26107
; Package
guile
.
(Tue, 18 May 2021 18:34:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 26107 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
FWIW this seems fixed in 3.0, but I can reproduce with 2.2.7.
Are we still supporting 2.2 for non-critical stuff?
--
Taylan
Severity set to 'minor' from 'normal'
Request was from
Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Tue, 18 May 2021 18:37:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
:
bug#26107
; Package
guile
.
(Tue, 18 May 2021 20:12:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #13 received at 26107 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> FWIW this seems fixed in 3.0, but I can reproduce with 2.2.7.
>
> Are we still supporting 2.2 for non-critical stuff?
There’s no plan to do so.
Ludo’.
Reply sent
to
Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Tue, 18 May 2021 20:13:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Tue, 18 May 2021 20:13:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #18 received at 26107-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 18.05.2021 22:11, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> FWIW this seems fixed in 3.0, but I can reproduce with 2.2.7.
>>
>> Are we still supporting 2.2 for non-critical stuff?
>
> There’s no plan to do so.
>
> Ludo’.
>
Closing then. :-)
--
Taylan
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 308 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.