Hi everyone, I'm looking to improve the output of the interpreter's LLTRACE feature to make it more understandable. This "feature" is undocumented, but it prints out the opcode and oparg of every bytecode instruction executed, along with some info about stack operations, whenever you've built with Py_DEBUG and the name `__ltrace__` is defined in the module.
I've found this useful for debugging bits of the compiler and bytecode interpreter. For example, if I make some tweak that instroduces an off-by-one error, by default I get a segfault or a rather unhelpful assertion failure at `assert(EMPTY())` or `assert(STACK_LEVEL() <= frame->f_code->co_stacksize)` or similar, at best, with no inducation as to where or why that assertion is failing. But if I enable `__ltrace__` by either setting `__ltrace__=1` in some module or by manually setting `lltrace=1;` in the c code, I can follow what was happening in the interpreter just before the crash. I'd like the output in that scenario to be a bit more helpful. I propose printing opcode names rather than decimal digits, and printing out the name of the current function whenever a stack frame begins executing. I also proprose to print out the full stack contents (almost never very deep) before each bytecode, rather than printing the state piecemeal at each PUSH/POP/STACK_ADJUST macro. I opened issue https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/91462 and PR https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/91463 I later found that this had been explored before by https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/69757, and there was a suggestion that this could be folded into a more generalized bytecode-level tracing feature that is pluggable with python code, similar to sys.settrace(). I would tend to think "YAGNI" -- lltrace is a feature for debugging the c internals of the interpreter, and there are already separate existing features like the `trace` module for tracing through Python code with different goals. I appreciate the simplicity of printf statements at the c level -- it feels more trustworthy than adding a complicated extra feature involving python calls and global state. It's as if I just littered the code with my own debugging print statements, but re-usable and better. I see no documentation anywhere, and there's only one test case in test_lltrace, just testing that there's no segfault. Looking back through the git history, I see that the basic `printf("%d: %d, %d\n", ...);` format goes back to 1990: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/3f5da24ea304e674a9abbdcffc4d671e32aa70f1/Python/ceval.c#L696-L710 I'm essentially writing to ask: how do you use lltrace? Does anyone rely on the particular format of the output? Would some of these improvements be helpful to you? What else could make it more helpful? Thanks, Dennis Sweeney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DELHX3N5PCZDWIK2DLU5JDG6JREQ42II/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
