[ python-Bugs-1248119 ] pdb 'next' does not skip list comprehension

Sun Aug 7 22:36:15 CEST 2005

Bugs item #1248119, was opened at 2005-07-30 14:12
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by isandler
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1248119&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Python Library
Group: Python 2.4
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Joseph Heled (pepster)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: pdb 'next' does not skip list comprehension

Initial Comment:
pdb next command forces you to step over each list element.

This seem to be a reincarnation of this old bug.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=523995&group_id=5470

Version:
Python 2.4.1 (#2, Mar 30 2005, 21:51:10) 
[GCC 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-8ubuntu2)] on linux2

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ilya Sandler (isandler)
Date: 2005-08-07 13:36

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=971153

 > The only viable workaround now is to wrap the code in a 
 > temporary function (i.e. lambda : ...). ugly.

Would setting a temporary breakpoint  (tbreak) on the line
after list comprehension be a much simpler workaround?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Joseph Heled (pepster)
Date: 2005-07-31 19:25

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=86677

I think this will be wonderfull ....

The only viable workaround now is to wrap the code in a
temporary function (i.e. lambda : ...). ugly.

-Thanks, JOseph

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ilya Sandler (isandler)
Date: 2005-07-31 13:48

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=971153

> you would realize what a serious bummer this is. 

I agree: this is a definite inconvenience. But I don't see
how it is different from having to step through any other
loop. However, I think there is a way to solve both problems
at once..See below

> Giving a 'next N' is nice, but will not be a real solution.
> Somethims it is not easy to know how many iterations there
> are. And when they are nested etc.

Actually, I did not mean "next N" to skip N iterations, what
I meant
to have 'next N' (or at least next 1) to skip next N lines
of code.
I.e stop only when
   line>=line_where_next_N_happened+N 
is reached...

So it seems like we are talking about the same thing...Right?

There are a couple of corner cases which would have to be
handled, (e.g keeping track of the current frame, etc)

Also "next N" would allow to easily skip over any loops (not
just list comprehensions), which I think would be a useful
feature...

What do you think?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Joseph Heled (pepster)
Date: 2005-07-30 23:02

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=86677

You probably never use pdb in a real program, otherwise you
would realize what a serious bummer this is. 

Giving a 'next N' is nice, but will not be a real solution.
Somethims it is not easy to know how many iterations there
are. And when they are nested etc.

If you are convinced this is the desired and reasonable
behaviour for next (a point of view I don't share), at least
have a different command to skip to the next line. I am
sorry but I have no idea if this is easy or hard.

Thanks, Joseph

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ilya Sandler (isandler)
Date: 2005-07-30 20:20

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=971153

While this behaviour indeed feels like a bug I'm starting to
think that it is not..

Observation1: 'step' should stop at every iteration of a
list comprehension

Observation2: the only difference between 'step' and 'next'
 is that 'step' steps into function calls (which is not the
case here)

So, it seems like 'next' should also stop at every iteration
of a list comprehenstion. Ie current behaviour is not a bug...

Would supporting a numeric argument for the 'next' command
make sense? 

So that 'next 1' would mean "stop when actual line number
increases by at least 1"...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ilya Sandler (isandler)
Date: 2005-07-30 17:59

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=971153

A bit more information. I looked into what happens in
ceval.c and apparently the current behaviour is intentional..

Looks like this piece of code:

	else if (frame->f_lasti <= *instr_prev) {
		/* jumping back in the same line forces a trace event */
		result = call_trace(func, obj, frame,
				    PyTrace_LINE, Py_None);
	}

in maybe_call_line_trace() is responsible for the extra
"line" events..
Seems like this piece of code was added to fix bug #765624.
in ceval.c:2.386

So, should this (1248119) bug be dealt with by skipping
extra line events in bdb?

Any thoughts? Or am I totally lost?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ilya Sandler (isandler)
Date: 2005-07-30 17:33

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=971153

I changed bdb.py to print the kind of event it receives as
well as as line numbers and here is a session which
illustrates the bug...

 bagira:~/python/dist/src/bug-next1248119> cat t
 #../python
 y=[1,2,3,4]
 x=[ i+1 for i in y]
 print x
 bagira:~/python/dist/src/bug-next1248119> ../python -m pdb t
 event: call; line 1, file <string>
 event: line; line 1, file <string>
 event: call; line 2, file t
 event: line; line 2, file t
 > /home/ilya/python/dist/src/bug-next1248119/t(2)?()
 -> y=[1,2,3,4]
 (Pdb) n
 event: line; line 3, file t
 > /home/ilya/python/dist/src/bug-next1248119/t(3)?()
 -> x=[ i+1 for i in y]
 (Pdb) n
 event: line; line 3, file t
 > /home/ilya/python/dist/src/bug-next1248119/t(3)?()
 -> x=[ i+1 for i in y]
 (Pdb) n
 event: line; line 3, file t
 > /home/ilya/python/dist/src/bug-next1248119/t(3)?()
 -> x=[ i+1 for i in y]
 (Pdb) 
 event: line; line 3, file t
 > /home/ilya/python/dist/src/bug-next1248119/t(3)?()
 -> x=[ i+1 for i in y]

So it appears that the interpreter generates "line" events
for every iteration of the loop..

Would this be a bug in the interpreter (and not in pdb/bdb)?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1248119&group_id=5470