Re: unusable backtrace

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:

>> Byte-compilation, I guess.  I seem to recall that Guile 2 uses
>> primitive-eval to run code that is not byte-compiled, and this loses
>> the location information.  Generally speaking, running code without
>> compilation seems to be preserved for the sake of eval but not
>> well-supported at all. Try 'make bytecode'.
>
> Thanks.  I noticed two issues.
>
> * The compilation output says, for example,
>
>   ```
>   ;;; compiling 
> /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/lily/graphviz.scm
>   ;;; compiled 
> /home/wl/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.A/home/wl/lilypond/scm/graphviz.scm.go
>   ```
>
>   This is strange: What does '2.2-LE-8-3.A' mean?

2.2 would likely be the major version, LE little endian, 8 could be the
cell size and, well, whatever.  Basically the path encodes the details
of the bytecode architecture, and then the source path.

>   Why do I get two paths concatenated?

Because the first path indicates the architecture and involved
executable, and the second path indicates the source path of the
compiled file.

>   Additionally, the `.go` files are put into
>   `/home/wl/lilypond/scm/out`
>
> * `make install` doesn't install `.go` files.  I seem to remember that
>   this was discussed...  I now wonder how to proceed with an installed
>   LilyPond version.

I don't even want to venture a guess here but someone else might.

-- 
David Kastrup