Re: [pypy-svn] r5649 - pypy/trunk/src/pypy (fwd)
Sorry, really ought to learn how to use email! Obviously none of the intended parties got this. :-( ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:39:46 +0100 (BST) From: Richard Emslie <rxe@ukshells.co.uk> To: mwh@codespeak.net Cc: pypy-svn@codespeak.net Subject: Re: [pypy-svn] r5649 - pypy/trunk/src/pypy Hi Michael! On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 mwh@codespeak.net wrote:
Author: mwh Date: Sat Jul 24 18:39:01 2004 New Revision: 5649
Modified: pypy/trunk/src/pypy/TODO Log: Random updates.
In my working tree I've commented out the code that prints interpreter- level tracebacks and have yet to miss them. Should I check this in?
Think I got rid of also in traceinteractive.py... if that counts for my vote ;-)
Modified: pypy/trunk/src/pypy/TODO ============================================================================== --- pypy/trunk/src/pypy/TODO (original)
[schnip]
* improve traceobjectspace! currently it only catches calls from outside the space into the space but not the ones where space operations involve calling more space - operations (the latter are not traced)! + operations (the latter are not traced)! (fixed?)
AFAIK yes! I've got some changes to checkin still (testit.py was broken and changing verbosity from traceinteractive.py) Should we combine interactive.py and traceinteractive.py ? (Since trace one was a blatant copy and paste hack :-) - also a TODO I believe). We could make interpreter level tracebacks a verbosity option? Cheers, Richard
Richard Emslie <rxe@ukshells.co.uk> writes:
Hi Michael!
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 mwh@codespeak.net wrote:
Author: mwh Date: Sat Jul 24 18:39:01 2004 New Revision: 5649 Modified: pypy/trunk/src/pypy/TODO Log: Random updates. In my working tree I've commented out the code that prints interpreter- level tracebacks and have yet to miss them. Should I check this in?
Think I got rid of also in traceinteractive.py... if that counts for my vote ;-)
Hmm. I think a better solution would be to do something like print an interpreter level traceback as far as the last opcode being executed, and construct an app-level traceback from there on back (also, stashing the interpreter level details away for later inspection, as the half-hearted tb_server code does seems a good idea). However, just commenting the printing of interpreter level tracebacks out does seem to be a net win.
Modified: pypy/trunk/src/pypy/TODO ============================================================================== --- pypy/trunk/src/pypy/TODO (original)
[schnip]
* improve traceobjectspace! currently it only catches calls from outside the space into the space but not the ones where space operations involve calling more space - operations (the latter are not traced)! + operations (the latter are not traced)! (fixed?)
AFAIK yes! I've got some changes to checkin still (testit.py was broken and changing verbosity from traceinteractive.py)
So change TODO :-)
Should we combine interactive.py and traceinteractive.py ? (Since trace one was a blatant copy and paste hack :-) - also a TODO I believe).
Yes, the main.py/py.py/interactive.py refactoring is something that has been a good idea for over a year, I think. But what we have works well enough so noone's gotten around to doing it.
We could make interpreter level tracebacks a verbosity option?
A nice idea. Cheers, mwh -- About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- E.W.Dijkstra, 18th June 1975. Perl did not exist at the time.
participants (2)
-
Michael Hudson -
Richard Emslie