[Tcl-bugs] [ tcl-Bugs-2438181 ] Incorrect error reporting in traces

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Bugs item #2438181, was opened at 2008-12-16 22:53
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by pooryorick
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=2438181&group_id=10894

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: 46. Traces
Group: obsolete: 8.5.5
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 9
Private: No
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to: Don Porter (dgp)
Summary: Incorrect error reporting in traces

Initial Comment:
This script:
#-----------
set pbody "set comms \[list [info commands]\]"
append pbody {
    set pname [lindex $pstr 1]
    if {[lsearch -exact $comms $pname]!=-1} {
        puts "$pname already exists"
        return
        }
    puts "Setting trace on: $pname"
    trace add execution $pname enter my_report2
    puts "Trace set"
    }

#This is an error I made:
proc my_report {pstr op} $pbody 

#This was intended, btw...:
#proc my_report {pstr args} $pbody

proc my_report2 {commstr args} {
set pname [lindex $commstr 0]
puts "<DEBUG> $pname"
}

trace add execution proc leave my_report

#Testing:

rename gets _gets
proc gets {a b} {
    puts "A new gets"
}

proc exp {a b} {
puts $a
puts $b
}

exp 1 2
gets 5 6
#-----------

Correctly reports in tclkit8.4.19:
-----
wrong # args: should be "my_report pstr op"
    while executing
"proc gets {a b} {
    puts "A new gets"
}"
    (file "bug.tcl" line 29)
-----

But both tcl 8.5.2 and 8.6a3 report:
-----

    while executing
"proc gets {a b} {
    puts "A new gets"
}"
    (file "bug.tcl" line 29)
-----
As you see, error description is missing.






----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Poor Yorick (pooryorick)
Date: 2013-02-12 16:28

Message:
oops, the following code chunk isn't part of the fix:

 @@ -2671,11 +2679,13 @@

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Poor Yorick (pooryorick)
Date: 2013-02-12 16:24

Message:
Here's a proposed fix and a test:

Index: generic/tclTrace.c
==================================================================
--- generic/tclTrace.c
+++ generic/tclTrace.c
@@ -1483,11 +1483,15 @@
            lastTracePtr = active.nextTracePtr->nextPtr;
        }
     }
     iPtr->activeCmdTracePtr = active.nextPtr;
     if (state) {
-       Tcl_RestoreInterpState(interp, state);
+       if (traceCode) {
+           Tcl_DiscardInterpState(state);
+       } else {
+           Tcl_RestoreInterpState(interp, state);
+       }
     }
 
     return traceCode;
 }
 
@@ -2671,11 +2679,13 @@
            if (code == TCL_ERROR) {
                goto done;
            }
        }
        /*
-       * an array trace may have caused the variable to exist
+       * an array trace may have caused the variable to exist. This
section
+       * and the one similar to it after the variable traces below are
+       * executed addresses bugs like #3603163 and #3599017
        */
        varPtr2 = TclObjLookupVarEx((Tcl_Interp *) iPtr
            , Tcl_NewStringObj(part1 ,-1)
            , Tcl_NewStringObj(part2 ,-1)
            , flags ,"read" ,/*createPart1*/ 0 ,/*createPart2*/ 0
,&newArrayPtr

Index: tests/trace.test
==================================================================
--- tests/trace.test
+++ tests/trace.test
@@ -2328,10 +2328,22 @@
 } -cleanup {
     namespace delete a
     rename ::x {}
 } -result {:: ::}
 
+proc set2 args {
+    set {*}$args
+}
+
+test trace-22.11.$mode {} {
+    body {} {
+       trace add execution set2 leave {puts one two three #;} 
+    } {
+       set2 a hello
+    }
+} {1 {wrong # args: should be "puts ?-nonewline? ?channelId? string"} {}}
+
 proc factorial {n} {
     if {$n != 1} { return [expr {$n * [factorial [expr {$n -1 }]]}] }
     return 1
 }


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Poor Yorick (pooryorick)
Date: 2013-02-11 21:12

Message:
Here's a more concise snippet that illustrates the problem, and takes it
further by illustrating that the interpreter result for the set command
remains in effect and is reported as the error:

trace add execution set leave { puts one two three ;#} 
puts "hmm..."
set a hello 


----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=2438181&group_id=10894