[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#3984:
From: |
Ryan |
Subject: |
bug#3984: |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:47:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
After reading and finally comprehending the definition of
"advice--called-interactively-skip", I think I have a possible solution
that doesn't require a top-down search, but it would require some minor
rearchitecting of nadvice. Basically, once we know that a particular
stack frame is a call to the innermost unadvised form of an advised
function, it is relatively easy to walk up the stack looking for the
outermost advice. This is what "advice--called-interactively-skip" does.
(Although reading through it I don't see where the bug is that prevents
it recognizing the before advice in my example.) The problem, then, is
knowing when a function is advised, given only the unadvised form and a
position in the stack. If we always unconditionally wrap an unadvised
function with a function that we can easily identify, then we can easily
check whether it has been advised. To that end, I propose the following:
;; Generate a private symbol
(defvar nadvice--indicator-symbol (make-symbol "nadvice--indicator-symbol"))
(defun wrap-function-in-indicator-lambda (func)
`(lambda (&rest args)
,nadvice--indicator-symbol
(apply ,func args)))
(defun indicator-lambda-p (func)
(eq nadvice--indicator-symbol
(nth 2 (wrap-function-in-indicator-lambda (indirect-function func)))))
If all advised functions are wrapped by a call to the above function
"wrap-function-in-indicator-lambda", then when they are called, the call
to the "indicator lambda" would always be 2 frames up from the call to
the original unadvised function. This allows us to easily recognize an
advised function on the stack by testing the function 2 frames up with
"indicator-lambda-p". Once we know the function is advised, we can then
initiate the search for the outermost advice's stack position.
In order to implement this, I think "advice-add" and "advice-remove"
need to be modified to automatically wrap/unwrap the original function
in/out of the indicator.
What do you think of this? Obviously my "indicator-lambda" could be
replaced by e.g. a no-op before/after advice or something similar, which
would have the same effect of making it easy to recognize the innermost
call of an advised function based on the contents of specific stack
frame positions above it.
What do you think of this?
-Ryan
- bug#3984: Fix for #3984, Ryan, 2013/09/13
- bug#3984: Fix for #3984, Stefan Monnier, 2013/09/13
- bug#3984: Fix for #3984, Ryan, 2013/09/13
- bug#3984: Fix for #3984, Ryan, 2013/09/13
- bug#3984: Fix for #3984, Stefan Monnier, 2013/09/13
- bug#3984: Fix for #3984, Ryan, 2013/09/16
- bug#3984: Fix for #3984, Stefan Monnier, 2013/09/17
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/17
- bug#3984:, Stefan Monnier, 2013/09/17
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/18
- bug#3984:,
Ryan <=
- bug#3984:, Stefan Monnier, 2013/09/18
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/19
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/19
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/19
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/20
- bug#3984: Fix case where call-interactively is advised, Ryan, 2013/09/20
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/20
- bug#3984:, Stefan Monnier, 2013/09/20
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/20
- bug#3984:, Ryan, 2013/09/20