traceback seems to have problems printing stack trace

[Spray27ds]

Hello,

"traceback" seems to have problems to print the names of the word in the stack trace.

Example: exception: EXC : test-trace EXC traceback ; test-trace prints:

Exeption: exc rdepth: 3 at ??? (1075948848) Restarting ESP ..

If I do : testrp rp@ @ heap-end - . ; testrp it shows that the address on top is about 2MB above the heap-end. I do not understand whats going on here. The addresses on the return stack seem to be not inside the dictionary.

Can you explain, what I'm doing wrong here? Many thanks,

Dietmar

[zeroflag]

Hi,

This is not what traceback is meant for. Traceback is used internally to give a return stacktrace upon an unhandled exception. Although I think it should work that way too (but there is an abort at the end of traceback that makes it less useful in your scenario).

For example:

(stack) exception: EXC
(stack) : w1 EXC throw ;
(stack) : w2 w1 ;
(stack) : w3 w2 ;
(stack) : w4 w3 ;
(stack) : w5 w4 ;
(stack)
(stack) w5

Exeption: EXC rdepth: 9
  at unhandled (140296)
  at throw (140488)
  at w1 (148484)
  at w2 (148508)
  at w3 (148528)
  at w4 (148548)

w5 is not visible in the trace for some reason, this is probably a bug that need to be investigated.

If I add some nested calls to your example it works but has the same problem.

(stack) exception: EXC
(stack)
(stack) : w1 EXC traceback ;
(stack) : w2 w1 ;
(stack) : w3 w2 ;
(stack) : w4 w3 ;
(stack) : w5 w4 ;
(stack)
(stack) w5

Exeption: EXC rdepth: 7
  at w1 (148484)
  at w2 (148508)
  at w3 (148528)
  at w4 (148548)

The reason for not working this with only one call might be the same that causes that the last call is not visible in the nested case. I'll take a look at the problem more deeply sometime later.

[zeroflag]

The problem is that w5 is called from the outer interpreter by an execute primitive that doesn't pushes down any return address to the rstack. I'll think about how to fix this.

[zeroflag]

I modified the traceback word a bit. Now it gives the following output for this code

exception: E
: a 10 0 do i 5 = if E throw then loop ;
: b a ;
: c b ;
: d c ;
: e d ;
e

Exeption: E rdepth: 10
  at throw (1073648592)
  at a (1073653432)
  at ??? (5)
  at ??? (10)
  at b (1073653500)
  at c (1073653520)
  at d (1073653540)
  at e (1073653560)

This is the correct trace. As you can see now, the call ('e') is presented in the stack trace. (the number 5 and 10 are the loop variables).

Without nested calls:

exception: EXC : test-trace EXC throw ; test-trace

Exeption: EXC rdepth: 4
  at throw (1073648592)
  at test-trace (1073653388)

The usage of the traceback word might be revised in the future because currently it's not that useful from a user perspective.