[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: unusable backtrace
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: unusable backtrace |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Mar 2022 00:00:55 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
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