[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: inlinable functions instead of macros
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: inlinable functions instead of macros |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:59:47 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 |
On 08/17/2012 04:48 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> While inlinable functions are much cleaner than macros, they have
> a very serious downside: you just end up with
>
> lisp.h:2416: Emacs fatal error: assertion failed: found == !EQ (blv->defcell,
> blv->valcell)
>
> I.e. the file&line info is always the same rather than giving the
> file&line where the inlinable function was called.
On systems that use glibc we could adjust eassert so that it
also prints a backtrace, using glibc's 'backtrace' function. See
<http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Backtraces.html>.
This would not be quite the same thing, as it would print function
names, insn offsets, and return addresses; but it would recapture
some of the ground lost here, and the backtrace info would in some
cases be more useful than what we have now.
- inlinable functions instead of macros, Stefan Monnier, 2012/08/17
- Re: inlinable functions instead of macros,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: inlinable functions instead of macros, Stefan Monnier, 2012/08/21
- C backtraces for Emacs, Paul Eggert, 2012/08/22
- Re: C backtraces for Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/08/22
- Re: C backtraces for Emacs, Paul Eggert, 2012/08/22
- Re: C backtraces for Emacs, Daniel Colascione, 2012/08/22
- Re: C backtraces for Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/08/23
- Re: C backtraces for Emacs, Paul Eggert, 2012/08/24