[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
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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]