On 28 September 2017 at 06:23, George King wrote:
> Victor, thank you for starting this conversation. Nick, I just looked at your
> patch and I think it is a better solution than mine, because it does not
> involve adding to or changing the sys API. I will close my pull
Victor, thank you for starting this conversation. Nick, I just looked at your
patch and I think it is a better solution than mine, because it does not
involve adding to or changing the sys API. I will close my pull request.
The reason for my interest in this area is that I’m experimenting with
On 27 September 2017 at 22:56, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
> function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
> idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> I afraid that this change breaks an assumption in frame_setlineno() about
> the state of the stack. This can corrupt the stack if you jump from the
> instruction which is a part of Python operation. For example
27.09.17 15:56, Victor Stinner пише:
In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
"trace_instructions: bool" optional (keyword-only?)
On 09/27/2017 02:56 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Hi,
In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
"trace_instructions: bool" optional
Hi,
In bpo-29400, it was proposed to add the ability to trace not only
function calls but also instructions at the bytecode level. I like the
idea, but I don't see how to extend sys.settrace() to add a new
"trace_instructions: bool" optional (keyword-only?) parameter without
breaking the backward