[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#42701: 28.0.50; Duplicate Edebug instrumentation of lambda form in s
bug#42701: 28.0.50; Duplicate Edebug instrumentation of lambda form in some cases
4 Aug 2020 20:12:58 -0000
tin/2.4.4-20191224 ("Millburn") (FreeBSD/11.3-RELEASE-p9 (amd64))
In article <email@example.com> you wrote:
> Create a file /tmp/edebug.el:
> $ cat /tmp/edebug.el
> (defun f () (if-let (x (funcall (lambda (y) 1) 2)) 3 4))
> Visit the file:
> $ emacs -Q -l subr-x -l edebug /tmp/edebug.el
> Now instrument the function `f' using C-u C-M-x. The *Messages* buffer
> will now contain
> Edebug: edebug-anon0 [2 times]
> Edebug: f
> The [2 times] indicates the problem: Edebug has instrumented two
> definitions with the same (generated) symbol.
I don't think you're correct, here. I think it's instrumented the
lambda form twice, once for each arm of the edebug spec. It discards
the first attempt, then succeeds at the second.
The pertinent edebug spec (from the if-let definition in subr-x.el)
([&or (&rest [&or symbolp (symbolp form) (form)])
. In the outer &or sub-spec, the (&rest ....) bit doesn't match, but
the failure to match only happens after the "Edebug: edebug-anon0"
message has been output the first time. Edebug then tries the (symbolp
form) alternative, which does match and outputs the "...-anon0" message
a second time.
> This is a problem when using Edebug for e.g. coverage instrumentation,
> as the coverage information is attached to the symbol itself (as a
> symbol property), and duplicate symbols when instrumenting code lead
> to subtle errors such as mismatching vector lengths for the position
> of the breakpoints and the hit counts.
I don't think this is happening (see above), but I admit not having
looked into it all that closely. Do you have any further evidence of
two distinct functions being mapped onto the same generated symbol?
> I'd speculate that this issue is similar to Bug#41988 in that Edebug
> defines instrumented symbols even when backtracking later. In this
> case, Edebug backtracks to the legacy (SYM VAL) form, but has already
> partially matched the ((SYM VAL)) form, including instrumenting the
> lambda form therein. I guess Edebug should perform some kind of
> two-phase instrumentation and instrument subforms only when a form has
> been chosen after backtracking. Since this is somewhat difficult to
> implement without rewriting larger parts of Edebug, it might be more
> feasible to regenerate anonymous symbols after a failed match.
I don't know why Edebug re-uses the symbol. But beyond the misleading
double message in *Messages*, is there any harm done? Would it be less
confusing if two distinct messages "Edebug: edebug-anon0" and "Edebug:
edebug-anon1" were to be output?
> In GNU Emacs 28.0.50 (build 72, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.18,
> cairo version 1.16.0)
> of 2020-08-03
> Repository revision: 16b7f413a9ff819c374e07ee927c1fd2b4138109
> Repository branch: master
> Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12008000
> System Description: Debian GNU/Linux rodete
[ .... ]
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).