On 28 September 2017 at 06:23, George King <gwk.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Victor, thank you for starting this conversation. Nick, I just looked at your > patch and I think it is a better solution than mine, because it does not > involve adding to or changing the sys API. I will close my pull request. > > The reason for my interest in this area is that I’m experimenting with a code > coverage tool that does per-opcode tracing. > I just updated it to use the new f_trace_opcodes feature and it *almost* > worked: Nick’s implementation calls the opcode trace before updating the line > number, whereas my version updated line numbers first, so the event stream is > slightly different. > > See: > https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/5a8516701f5140c8c989c40e261a4f4e20e8af86#diff-7f17c8d8448b7b6f90549035d2147a9f > > From my perspective it makes more sense to do the update to f_lineno first, > followed by the opcode trace, because then line events and opcode events > corresponding to the same opcode will have the same line number; as it is > they come out different. > > Is the current order intentional? Otherwise I’ll submit a patch.
Line numbers simply weren't relevant to my use case (injecting inconveniently timed exceptions), so I never checked whether or not f_lineno was accurate when the trace event was emitted. So yeah, a follow-up bug report and PR to fix that would be appreciated (no need for a NEWS entry, since it's a bug in a not-yet-released feature). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
