> On Mar 13, 2012, at 19:30, "Luís Oliveira" <luis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodono...@yandex.ru> >> wrote: >>> They would of course.. but there is no portable way to retrieve a >>> backtrace of CL condition. >> swank should provide a portable way to do that.
14.03.2012, 04:35, "Robert Goldman" <rpgold...@gmail.com>: > There is trivial-backtrace, I believe, if one is willing to include > that in the CL-test-grid. Possibly a "smaller" include than swank. 14.03.2012, 04:34, "Stelian Ionescu" <sione...@cddr.org>: > Or even better: https://gitorious.org/conium I knew about trivial-backgrace (it borrows code from swank), but conium is new for me. I will keep that it mind, but it will not always works (neither of them). For example ECL - it's lisp-to-C compiler strips function names, so that backtrace is unreadable (both in swank and trivial-backtrace). And for ECL, last time I tried, it was only able to retrieve backtrace of the REPL thread, but not for other treads. Actually, backtrace of compilation error will always be similar: test-grid::libtest -> quicklisp:quickload -> asdf:operate ... Not that many information it will give. Also, I want to keep the test runner workable, even if trivial-backgrace, or other dependency can't be compiled on that lisp. So it should be implemented with care. Considering all this, I think in the near future I will not work on adding backtraces. While they are good, usually it's not very difficult to understand the reason without backtrace (in the worst case, by running the tests again to reproduce the problem). Best regards, - Anton _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
