I should have also mentioned that using -j to disable the JIT (as Robby suggested) should also give you context independent of the platform or the way that Racket is compiled.
At Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:28:53 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: > I wonder whether the problem could be related to compilation options. > Did you compile your own executable? If so, what flags were given to > `configure' and/or the C compiler? > > On x86_64 Linux, Racket uses DWARF information to walk parts of the > runtime stack. It occurs to me that if you use gcc without the `-g' > flag, then DWARF information isn't included, so Racket can't understand > the stack. There may be other options that confuse the stack walker. > > (Errortrace and DrRacket both add their own context tracking > independent of the way that Racket is compiled, but that context is not > reflected via `continuation-mark-set->context'.) > > At Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:37:13 +0900, Chad Albers wrote: > > I'm using Debian Linux. > > -- > > Chad Albers > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > What platform are you using? > > > > > > If it's Win64, the problem is likely Racket's weak support for getting > > > a backtrace on that platform (when the JIT is enabled). > > > > > > At Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:01:02 +0900, Chad Albers wrote: > > >> Hi Eli, > > >> > > >> Thanks for you help. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. I > > >> literally cut the code and pasted in a rkt file with #lang racket at > > >> the top. I ran it with the racket CLI, and received: '() > > >> > > >> Should I be invoking the CLI with some option? Any other ideas? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Chad > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > > >> > A few minutes ago, Chad Albers wrote: > > >> >> Hi, > > >> >> > > >> >> Is there some sort of 'secret' to acquiring the stack trace of an > > >> >> exception? It is my understanding that when an exception is raised > > >> >> with the 'error' procedure in creates a exn:fail structure that has > > >> >> a message field and a continuation-marks field. Presumably the > > >> >> stack trace is in the continuation-marks field. To actually get the > > >> >> stack trace I need to call the following: > > >> >> > > >> >> (continuation-mark-set->context (exn-continuation-marks exception)) > > >> > > > >> > This should work -- for example, I see a stack trace with: > > >> > > > >> > (with-handlers ([void (λ (e) (continuation-mark-set->context > > >> > (exn-continuation-marks e)))]) > > >> > (+ 1 "two")) > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> However, whenever I call this, it yields an empty list: () - Not a > > >> >> stack trace. > > >> > > > >> > That can happen from running code in threads which start from an empty > > >> > context. For example, doing the above in a thread: > > >> > > > >> > (thread (λ () (printf "~s\n" ...same...))) > > >> > > > >> > shows an empty trace. > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > > >> > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > > >> > > >> ____________________ > > >> Racket Users list: > > >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
