[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Change by Xiang Zhang : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Py

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Xiang Zhang added the comment: New changeset e64a47b37d0c592fd162b2f51e79ecfd046b45ec by Xiang Zhang in branch '2.7': bpo-17799: Explain real behaviour of sys.settrace and sys.setprofile (GH-4056). (#5299) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/e64a47b37d0c592fd162b2f51e79ecfd046b45ec ---

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Xiang Zhang added the comment: New changeset fd844efa9c31e1f00e04b07940875b9dacff3d77 by Xiang Zhang in branch '3.6': bpo-17799: Explain real behaviour of sys.settrace and sys.setprofile (GH-4056) (#5298) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/fd844efa9c31e1f00e04b07940875b9dacff3d77

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Change by Xiang Zhang : -- pull_requests: +5146 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.p

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Change by Xiang Zhang : -- pull_requests: +5145 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.p

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Xiang Zhang added the comment: New changeset 131fd7f96c619bc7eaea956e45c6337175f4b27f by Xiang Zhang (Pablo Galindo) in branch 'master': bpo-17799: Explain real behaviour of sys.settrace and sys.setprofile (#4056) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/131fd7f96c619bc7eaea956e45c6337175f4b27

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Guido van Rossum added the comment: Too bad, it's been like this since the feature was first created. It would most likely break other code that uses the tracing hooks, so you'd have to propose it as a new feature. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Xiang Zhang added the comment: Hi Guido. Looking at the implementation, it seems pdb ignores c_call not by relying on the interpreter, but bdb takes no action when encountering C events. Yeah, even bdb wrongly expects C events will be triggered for settrace. [1] And what if some debuggers wan

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Guido van Rossum added the comment: The reason not to pass C calls to the tracing function is that tracing exists to support pdb and other debuggers, and pdb only cares about tracing through Python code. So the docs should be updated. -- nosy: +gvanrossum

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Change by Mark Lawrence : -- nosy: -BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Xiang Zhang added the comment: Is there any reason not to respond to "c_call" events in trace function? -- nosy: +xiang.zhang ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Change by Pablo Galindo Salgado : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +4025 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Change by raylu : -- nosy: +raylu ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mail

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Changes by Maries Ionel Cristian : -- nosy: +ionel.mc ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://m

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

Mark Lawrence added the comment: @Ned can you provide a patch for this? -- nosy: +BreamoreBoy type: -> behavior versions: +Python 3.4, Python 3.5 -Python 3.3 ___ Python tracker

[issue17799] settrace docs are wrong about "c_call" events

New submission from Ned Batchelder: Looking into this Stack Overflow question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16115027/pythons-sys-settrace-wont-create-c-call-events Reading the code in c_eval.c and friends, it looks like "c_call" events are never passed to the trace function, only to the