[Python-checkins] r60579 - in python/branches/release25-maint: Lib/test/test_trace.py Misc/NEWS Python/compile.c
amaury.forgeotdarc
python-checkins at python.org
Mon Feb 4 23:34:57 CET 2008
Author: amaury.forgeotdarc
Date: Mon Feb 4 23:34:57 2008
New Revision: 60579
Modified:
python/branches/release25-maint/Lib/test/test_trace.py
python/branches/release25-maint/Misc/NEWS
python/branches/release25-maint/Python/compile.c
Log:
backport of r60575 (issue #1750076): Debugger did not step on every iteration of a while statement.
The mapping between bytecode offsets and source lines (lnotab) did not contain
an entry for the beginning of the loop.
Now it does, and the lnotab can be a bit larger:
in particular, several statements on the same line generate several entries.
However, this does not bother the settrace function, which will trigger only
one 'line' event.
The lnotab seems to be exactly the same as with python2.4.
Modified: python/branches/release25-maint/Lib/test/test_trace.py
==============================================================================
--- python/branches/release25-maint/Lib/test/test_trace.py (original)
+++ python/branches/release25-maint/Lib/test/test_trace.py Mon Feb 4 23:34:57 2008
@@ -252,14 +252,16 @@
"\n".join(difflib.ndiff([str(x) for x in expected_events],
[str(x) for x in events])))
-
- def run_test(self, func):
+ def run_and_compare(self, func, events):
tracer = Tracer()
sys.settrace(tracer.trace)
func()
sys.settrace(None)
self.compare_events(func.func_code.co_firstlineno,
- tracer.events, func.events)
+ tracer.events, events)
+
+ def run_test(self, func):
+ self.run_and_compare(func, func.events)
def run_test2(self, func):
tracer = Tracer()
@@ -307,6 +309,49 @@
self.compare_events(generator_example.func_code.co_firstlineno,
tracer.events, generator_example.events)
+ def test_14_onliner_if(self):
+ def onliners():
+ if True: False
+ else: True
+ return 0
+ self.run_and_compare(
+ onliners,
+ [(0, 'call'),
+ (1, 'line'),
+ (3, 'line'),
+ (3, 'return')])
+
+ def test_15_loops(self):
+ # issue1750076: "while" expression is skipped by debugger
+ def for_example():
+ for x in range(2):
+ pass
+ self.run_and_compare(
+ for_example,
+ [(0, 'call'),
+ (1, 'line'),
+ (2, 'line'),
+ (1, 'line'),
+ (2, 'line'),
+ (1, 'line'),
+ (1, 'return')])
+
+ def while_example():
+ # While expression should be traced on every loop
+ x = 2
+ while x > 0:
+ x -= 1
+ self.run_and_compare(
+ while_example,
+ [(0, 'call'),
+ (2, 'line'),
+ (3, 'line'),
+ (4, 'line'),
+ (3, 'line'),
+ (4, 'line'),
+ (3, 'line'),
+ (3, 'return')])
+
class RaisingTraceFuncTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
def trace(self, frame, event, arg):
"""A trace function that raises an exception in response to a
Modified: python/branches/release25-maint/Misc/NEWS
==============================================================================
--- python/branches/release25-maint/Misc/NEWS (original)
+++ python/branches/release25-maint/Misc/NEWS Mon Feb 4 23:34:57 2008
@@ -80,6 +80,10 @@
Library
-------
+- #175006: The debugger used to skip the condition of a "while" statement
+ after the first iteration. Now it correctly steps on the expression, and
+ breakpoints on the "while" statement are honored on each loop.
+
- The ctypes int types did not accept objects implementing
__int__() in the constructor.
Modified: python/branches/release25-maint/Python/compile.c
==============================================================================
--- python/branches/release25-maint/Python/compile.c (original)
+++ python/branches/release25-maint/Python/compile.c Mon Feb 4 23:34:57 2008
@@ -1298,11 +1298,16 @@
return b->b_iused++;
}
-/* Set the i_lineno member of the instruction at offse off if the
- line number for the current expression/statement (?) has not
+/* Set the i_lineno member of the instruction at offset off if the
+ line number for the current expression/statement has not
already been set. If it has been set, the call has no effect.
- Every time a new node is b
+ The line number is reset in the following cases:
+ - when entering a new scope
+ - on each statement
+ - on each expression that start a new line
+ - before the "except" clause
+ - before the "for" and "while" expressions
*/
static void
@@ -2234,9 +2239,8 @@
VISIT(c, expr, s->v.For.iter);
ADDOP(c, GET_ITER);
compiler_use_next_block(c, start);
- /* XXX(nnorwitz): is there a better way to handle this?
- for loops are special, we want to be able to trace them
- each time around, so we need to set an extra line number. */
+ /* for expressions must be traced on each iteration,
+ so we need to set an extra line number. */
c->u->u_lineno_set = false;
ADDOP_JREL(c, FOR_ITER, cleanup);
VISIT(c, expr, s->v.For.target);
@@ -2283,6 +2287,9 @@
if (!compiler_push_fblock(c, LOOP, loop))
return 0;
if (constant == -1) {
+ /* while expressions must be traced on each iteration,
+ so we need to set an extra line number. */
+ c->u->u_lineno_set = false;
VISIT(c, expr, s->v.While.test);
ADDOP_JREL(c, JUMP_IF_FALSE, anchor);
ADDOP(c, POP_TOP);
@@ -2464,8 +2471,8 @@
s->v.TryExcept.handlers, i);
if (!handler->type && i < n-1)
return compiler_error(c, "default 'except:' must be last");
- c->u->u_lineno_set = false;
- c->u->u_lineno = handler->lineno;
+ c->u->u_lineno_set = false;
+ c->u->u_lineno = handler->lineno;
except = compiler_new_block(c);
if (except == NULL)
return 0;
@@ -4184,12 +4191,6 @@
assert(d_bytecode >= 0);
assert(d_lineno >= 0);
- /* XXX(nnorwitz): is there a better way to handle this?
- for loops are special, we want to be able to trace them
- each time around, so we need to set an extra line number. */
- if (d_lineno == 0 && i->i_opcode != FOR_ITER)
- return 1;
-
if (d_bytecode > 255) {
int j, nbytes, ncodes = d_bytecode / 255;
nbytes = a->a_lnotab_off + 2 * ncodes;
More information about the Python-checkins
mailing list