Re: How to get better stack trace from a script executed via shebang?

[Fabrizio Bianchi]

salve. Ho letto il vostro messaggio.
Purtroppo non capisco quale sia il problema.
Provi a sentire la community. Ho installato dal sito FSF.org il guile 3.0.9
bianchi fabrizio


Il giorno gio 2 feb 2023 alle ore 17:13 Wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz> ha scritto:

> Hello,
>
> I'm having a problem of getting borderline useless stack traces from a
> script
> executed via a shebang. For example, let's consider following script:
>
>     $ cat /tmp/x.scm
>     #!/bin/sh
>     exec guile --no-auto-compile -e main -s "$0" "$@"
>     !#
>
>     (define (main args)
>       (foo))
>
>     (define (foo)
>       (bar))
>
>     (define (bar)
>       (error "x"))
>
> When I execute it directly, the error message is not great:
>
>     $ /tmp/x.scm
>     Backtrace:
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>       1752:10  4 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ #:unwind-for-type
> _)
>     In unknown file:
>                3 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fdb1e7a2340>)
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>         724:2  2 (call-with-prompt ("prompt") #<procedure 7fdb1e7b2c80 at
> ice-9/eval.scm:330:13 ()> #<procedure default-prompt-handler (k proc)>)
>     In ice-9/eval.scm:
>         619:8  1 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fdb1e7a5c80>)))
>     In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>        2007:7  0 (error _ . _)
>
>     ice-9/boot-9.scm:2007:7: In procedure error:
>     x
>
> The /tmp/x.scm file is not even mentioned once in the output. Can this be
> somehow (command line arguments, changing the exec line, ...) improved?
> Currently it's not very useful when I need to find out what the problem
> was.
>
> Thank you,
> W.
>
> --
> There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
> cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
>