Re: Incomplete backtrace

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Jan Synacek <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:07 PM Jan Synacek <address@hidden> wrote:

[...]

>> $ guile -s test.scm
>> Backtrace:
>> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>   1736:10  8 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
>> In unknown file:
>>            7 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 2237960>)
>> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>     718:2  6 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle…>)
>> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>>     619:8  5 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 225ef00>)))
>> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>    2806:4  4 (save-module-excursion _)
>>   4351:12  3 (_)
>> In ice-9/ports.scm:
>>     550:4  2 (call-with-output-string _)
>> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>>    260:13  1 (for-each #<procedure 290ed20 at ice-9/regex.scm:143:1…> …)
>> In ice-9/regex.scm:
>>      64:2  0 (_ _)
>>
>
> I forgot one line in the backtrace output:
>
> ice-9/regex.scm:64:2: In procedure vector-ref: Wrong type argument in
> position 1 (expecting vector): #f
>
> Which sort of gives a hint, but not really...

Line 62, column 2 of ice-9/regexp.scm is:

  (define (match:string match)
    (vector-ref match 0))
    ^

So it suggests there’s no match, leading to the crash.

(Which is not to say that the backtrace can’t be improved…)

Ludo’.