| msg254218 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) *  |
Date: 2015-11-06 21:13 |
| When we use the Py_Debug flag for the compilation, we can see the Bytecodes and the opcode arguments. Here is a small patch, it will show the label of the opcode in the ceval.c file. |
|
|
| msg254219 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2015-11-06 21:14 |
| Here is my patch with the improvement. |
|
|
| msg255347 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2015-11-25 13:30 |
| What is lltrace? I never used it :-( Is it documented? Can you give examples of output before/after? We may make your change optional to give the choice of the output. |
|
|
| msg270552 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2016-07-16 10:17 |
| Here is a small example of lltrace when you enable it. ``` stephane@sg1 ~/s/h/cpython> ./python Python 3.6.0a3+ (default:0d8f139a6e19+, Jul 16 2016, 11:59:46) [GCC 6.1.1 20160621 (Red Hat 6.1.1-3)] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> print >>> print("hello") hello >>> __ltrace__ = None >>> print("hello") 0: LOAD_NAME, 0 push 2: LOAD_CONST, 0 push 'hello' 4: CALL_FUNCTION, 1 ext_pop 'hello' hello ext_pop push None 6: PRINT_EXPR pop None 8: LOAD_CONST, 1 push None 10: RETURN_VALUE pop None >>> del __ltrace__ 0: DELETE_NAME, 0 2: LOAD_CONST, 0 push None 4: RETURN_VALUE pop None >>> print("hello") hello >>> print("hello") ``` |
|
|
| msg270553 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2016-07-16 10:21 |
| here is the patch, if you want to test it, just use the REPL and add __ltrace__ = None in the REPL. |
|
|
| msg270859 - (view) |
Author: Xavier Combelle (xcombelle) * |
Date: 2016-07-20 08:35 |
| I made some comment on code in review. A thing that worry me that there is zero automated test. In my opinion the minimal should be to test the expected output. A nice to have would be a test for the write_contents function of makeopcodetranslations.py |
|
|
| msg270860 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2016-07-20 08:51 |
| Totally agree with you, I am going to check that, because currently, there is no test with this "hidden" feature in Python. I am going to discuss with Victor about this point. Thanks, Stephane On 07/20, Xavier Combelle wrote: > >Xavier Combelle added the comment: > >I made some comment on code in review. > >A thing that worry me that there is zero automated test. > >In my opinion the minimal should be to test the expected output. > >A nice to have would be a test for the write_contents function of makeopcodetranslations.py > >---------- >nosy: +xcombelle > >_______________________________________ >Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> ><http://bugs.python.org/issue25571> >_______________________________________ >_______________________________________________ >Python-bugs-list mailing list >Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/stephane%40wirtel.be > |
|
|
| msg270863 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2016-07-20 11:05 |
| It would be nice to have unit tests and docs :-) For unit test, you can use a script like: --- def func(): return 1 __ltrace__ = True func() --- Run the script with test.support.assert_python_ok(), and check stdout. To skip the test if Python is compiled in released mode, you can use: --- # Were we compiled --with-pydebug or with #define Py_DEBUG? Py_DEBUG = hasattr(sys, 'gettotalrefcount') ... @unittest.skipUnless(Py_DEBUG, 'need Py_DEBUG') --- |
|
|
| msg270864 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2016-07-20 11:10 |
| Sorry, I don't know what is the best place to add new unit tests. I don't know neither what is the best place to document the __ltrace__ feature. Maybe somewhere near: * https://docs.python.org/dev/library/debug.html Or maybe: * https://docs.python.org/dev/library/trace.html |
|
|
| msg271914 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2016-08-03 16:59 |
| Here is a small patch for the __ltrace__ feature. I would like to propose a new test, __ltrace__ should be defined in the globals() dictionary and there is no check on the value associated to this key. Maybe we could defined it as a boolean, True or False. |
|
|
| msg271915 - (view) |
Author: Anilyka Barry (abarry) *  |
Date: 2016-08-03 17:17 |
| Left some comments on Rietveld; mostly documentation-related (and pointed out some typos). I'm also +1 on having to specify a True value rather than just defining the variable at all (i.e. setting __ltrace__ to False is the same as not defining it). If you change this, I'd probably force the value to be an actual bool, i.e. True or False (much like __debug__; except that it's read-only and a syntax error to assign to it). |
|
|
| msg271931 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2016-08-03 23:06 |
| Here is a new version of my patch "-4.diff" with the comments of Emanuel Barry. |
|
|
| msg271933 - (view) |
Author: Anilyka Barry (abarry) * |
Date: 2016-08-04 00:00 |
| Maybe someone who knows this feature better can weigh in, but otherwise LGTM. |
|
|
| msg278723 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2016-10-15 12:53 |
| I have to update my patch to python-3.7, I will provide a patch asap. |
|
|
| msg294378 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2017-05-24 19:07 |
| @haypo, you told me there is an alternative to my patch, provided by an other dev. what's the bpo issue for the alternative. |
|
|
| msg294463 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2017-05-25 10:50 |
| https://bugs.python.org/issue29400 |
|
|
| msg298435 - (view) |
Author: George King (gwk) * |
Date: 2017-07-16 12:33 |
| @matrixise, I'm the author of the alternative in , and I'm finally finding the time to get back into it. I'm going to make a push this week to clean it up; your feedback would be much appreciated! |
|
|
| msg298438 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2017-07-16 14:14 |
| I still strongly prefer bpo-29400 over "lltrace", since it would be usable in release mode. |
|
|
| msg298849 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2017-07-22 13:58 |
| @gwk no problem for a review of your patch @haypo as discussed before, maybe we could remove the lltrace feature because this one is never used by the developers. or we could ask on @python-dev ML. If there is a better solution and this one could replace the current `lltrace`, I am ok with that. |
|
|
| msg298904 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2017-07-23 13:02 |
| I suggest to wait until sys.settrace() supports bytecode level tracing, then rewrite lltrace on top of it, open a new issue to remove C lltrace and close this issue. You need to write to python-dev if you want to remove the current C lltrace. |
|
|