GNU logs - #36471, boring messages

Message sent to rob@HIDDEN, bug-guix@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#36471: Unreadable Stacktrace Example
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?= <bjoern.hoefling@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: rob@HIDDEN, bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:13:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.36471.B.156206597530833 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 36471 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: robert vollmert <rob@HIDDEN>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:12:45 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?= <bjoern.hoefling@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20190702131245.15561fbd@alma-ubu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 boundary="Sig_/9k.S3lxhkcQeyY1FXHhzMez"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

--Sig_/9k.S3lxhkcQeyY1FXHhzMez
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

X-Debbugs-CC: Robert Vollmert <rob@HIDDEN>

Hello,

in the 1.0-beyond-discussions, Robert asked that Stacktraces should be
more clear. I refer to this message (lists.gnu.org is down, so I
cannot link):

From: Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@HIDDEN>
To: Robert Vollmert <rob@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: Guix beyond 1.0: let=E2=80=99s have a roadmap!
Message-ID: <878stirsdc.fsf@HIDDEN>

Here is my example. I'm on top of

48eb71aea807262210c38b5fb675d747adfccff3

First the full stacktrace, below are some comments:

./pre-inst-env  guix lint -c cve freecad                        =20
Backtrace:reecad@HIDDEN [cve]...
          11 (apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 1a071a0>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    705:2 10 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle?>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
    619:8  9 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 1ac5140>)))
In guix/ui.scm:
  1668:12  8 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    640:9  7 (for-each #<procedure 1df01a0 at guix/scripts/lint.scm?> ?)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
   1152:4  6 (run-checkers #<package freecad@HIDDEN gnu/p?> ?)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    640:9  5 (for-each #<procedure 3e473c0 at guix/scripts/lint.scm?> ?)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
    933:4  4 (check-vulnerabilities _)
    928:9  3 (_ _)
In unknown file:
           2 (force #<promise #<procedure 7f1ce3ab6228 at guix/scrip?>)
In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
   917:24  1 (_)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    829:9  0 (catch srfi-34 #<procedure 37e64e0 at guix/scripts/lin?> ?)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:829:9: In procedure catch:
In procedure connect: Connection timed out


OK, this is semi-readable but I will explain a bit what I find
strange/unreadable:

In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
   1152:4  6 (run-checkers #<package freecad@HIDDEN gnu/p?> ?)

--> OK: This is perfectly readable. I know in which procedure I am,
in which line, the line matches my source code. Fine.

In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    640:9  5 (for-each #<procedure 3e473c0 at guix/scripts/lint.scm?> ?)

--> This is OK, though it could print the line of the procedure?

In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
    933:4  4 (check-vulnerabilities _)
    928:9  3 (_ _)

--> 933: Nice, I'm in check-vulnerabilities. But why is there no argument?
--> What is this strange second line: (_ _)? Why is there nothing written?
Is that due to tail-recursion?


In unknown file:
           2 (force #<promise #<procedure 7f1ce3ab6228 at guix/scrip?>)

--> Why is this in a "unknown file"?
--> Is this force/promise making my stacktrace more unreadable?

In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
   917:24  1 (_)

--> Uh. Any more details?. Is "(_)" the call to "(current-vulnerabilities*)=
"?!

In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    829:9  0 (catch srfi-34 #<procedure 37e64e0 at guix/scripts/lin?> ?)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:829:9: In procedure catch:
In procedure connect: Connection timed out

--> Now, wait: The real problem happens somewhere down here and I don't
have any detailed stacktrace about that?

I have to manually go down into current-vulnerabilities*,
call/nw/failsaife, etc? Why don't I get the details from here?

Is this because in "call-with-networking-fail-safe", line 900 we
through newly:

        (args
         (apply throw args))))))

but then the stacktrace gets lost?

Would there be a throw-with-caused-by?

Bj=C3=B6rn


--Sig_/9k.S3lxhkcQeyY1FXHhzMez
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCXRs8LQAKCRC/KGy2WT5f
/WriAKCOjwhhYoGSxGKHLZhpIMWYP4RKpwCeNjzYVT/jZBRvR+uty6irzLjYzKw=
=DeJN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/9k.S3lxhkcQeyY1FXHhzMez--

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?=
 <bjoern.hoefling@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#36471: Acknowledgement (Unreadable Stacktrace Example)
Message-ID: <handler.36471.B.156206597530833.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <20190702131245.15561fbd@alma-ubu>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 36471
X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix
Reply-To: 36471 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:13:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

As you requested using X-Debbugs-CC, your message was also forwarded to
  robert vollmert <rob@HIDDEN>
(after having been given a bug report number, if it did not have one).

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-guix@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 36471 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
36471: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D36471
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message received at control <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jul 2019 14:32:25 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 07 10:32:25 2019
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57273 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1hk8DJ-0008P6-14
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 10:32:25 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36971)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1hk8DH-0008Ou-Tj
 for control <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 10:32:24 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41784)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1hk8D7-0002jg-Pd
 for control <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 10:32:16 -0400
Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=56402 helo=ribbon)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1hk8D6-0007g3-VI
 for control <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 10:32:13 -0400
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 16:32:11 +0200
Message-Id: <87r2719aqc.fsf@HIDDEN>
To: control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
Subject: control message for bug #36471
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

reassign 36471 guile
quit

Message sent to bug-guile@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#36471: Unreadable Stacktrace Example
Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 14:39:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.36471.B36471.1562510299482 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?= <bjoern.hoefling@HIDDEN>
Cc: 36471 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, robert vollmert <rob@HIDDEN>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
References: <20190702131245.15561fbd@alma-ubu>
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 16:38:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190702131245.15561fbd@alma-ubu> ("=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?="'s message of
 "Tue, 2 Jul 2019 13:12:45 +0200")
Message-ID: <87ef319agf.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi Bj=C3=B6rn,

I=E2=80=99m reassigning this bug report to =E2=80=98guile=E2=80=99.  :-)

Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling <bjoern.hoefling@HIDDEN> skribis:

> First the full stacktrace, below are some comments:
>
> ./pre-inst-env  guix lint -c cve freecad=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
> Backtrace:reecad@HIDDEN [cve]...
>           11 (apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 1a071a0>)
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>     705:2 10 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle?>)
> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>     619:8  9 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 1ac5140>)))
> In guix/ui.scm:
>   1668:12  8 (run-guix-command _ . _)
> In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
>     640:9  7 (for-each #<procedure 1df01a0 at guix/scripts/lint.scm?> ?)
> In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
>    1152:4  6 (run-checkers #<package freecad@HIDDEN gnu/p?> ?)
> In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
>     640:9  5 (for-each #<procedure 3e473c0 at guix/scripts/lint.scm?> ?)
> In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
>     933:4  4 (check-vulnerabilities _)
>     928:9  3 (_ _)
> In unknown file:
>            2 (force #<promise #<procedure 7f1ce3ab6228 at guix/scrip?>)
> In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
>    917:24  1 (_)
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>     829:9  0 (catch srfi-34 #<procedure 37e64e0 at guix/scripts/lin?> ?)
>
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:829:9: In procedure catch:
> In procedure connect: Connection timed out

[...]

> In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
>     933:4  4 (check-vulnerabilities _)
>     928:9  3 (_ _)
>
> --> 933: Nice, I'm in check-vulnerabilities. But why is there no argument?
> --> What is this strange second line: (_ _)? Why is there nothing written?

Good question, I=E2=80=99m not sure why that happens, but hopefully it=E2=
=80=99s easily
fixed.

> In unknown file:
>            2 (force #<promise #<procedure 7f1ce3ab6228 at guix/scrip?>)
>
> --> Why is this in a "unknown file"?

Because =E2=80=98force=E2=80=99 is implemented in C, so there=E2=80=99s no =
source location info
available.

> --> Is this force/promise making my stacktrace more unreadable?

No.

> In guix/scripts/lint.scm:
>    917:24  1 (_)
>
> --> Uh. Any more details?. Is "(_)" the call to "(current-vulnerabilities=
*)"?!

Dunno.  :-/

> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>     829:9  0 (catch srfi-34 #<procedure 37e64e0 at guix/scripts/lin?> ?)
>
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:829:9: In procedure catch:
> In procedure connect: Connection timed out
>
> --> Now, wait: The real problem happens somewhere down here and I don't
> have any detailed stacktrace about that?
>
> I have to manually go down into current-vulnerabilities*,
> call/nw/failsaife, etc? Why don't I get the details from here?

Part of what makes information =E2=80=9Cdisappear=E2=80=9D from stack trace=
s is the
tail-call optimization (TCO).  If F calls G, and G then calls H in tail
position, then the backtrace will suggest that F called H (G doesn=E2=80=99t
appear at all.)

IIRC Chez Scheme has a fancy trick that allows it to keep track of part
of the =E2=80=9Cconceptual=E2=80=9D stack trace, without losing the space g=
uarantees
that TCO provides.  It cannot come for free though, but I wonder if
Guile should provide it in =E2=80=98--debug=E2=80=99 mode or something.

> Is this because in "call-with-networking-fail-safe", line 900 we
> through newly:
>
>         (args
>          (apply throw args))))))
>
> but then the stacktrace gets lost?
>
> Would there be a throw-with-caused-by?

Not sure what you mean, but note that in many cases =E2=80=98throw=E2=80=99=
 itself is
called in tail position, which can also contribute to obfuscating the
stack trace=E2=80=A6

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.

Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

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