-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 646
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ltac call trace does not include tactics run by ML tactics #6404
Labels
kind: user messages
Improvement of error messages, new warnings, etc.
part: ltac
Issues and PRs related to the Ltac tactic language.
Milestone
Comments
JasonGross
added
kind: user messages
Improvement of error messages, new warnings, etc.
part: ltac
Issues and PRs related to the Ltac tactic language.
labels
Dec 12, 2017
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2017
This closes coq#5082 and coq#5778, but makes coq#6404 apply to `abstract` as well as `transparent_abstract`. This is unfortunate, but I think it is worth it to get `abstract` in the profile (and therefore not misassign the time spent sending the subproof to the kernel). Another alternative would have been to add a dedicated entry to `ltac_call_kind` for `TacAbstract`, but I think it's better to just deal with coq#6404 all at once. The "better" solution here would have been to move `abstract` out of the Ltac syntax tree and define it via `TACTIC EXTEND` like `transparent_abstract`. However, the STM relies on its ability to recognize `abstract` and `solve [ abstract ... ]` syntactically so that it can handle `par: abstract`. Note that had to add locations to `TacAbstract` nodes, as I could not figure out how to call `push_trace` otherwise.
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2017
This closes coq#5082 and coq#5778, but makes coq#6404 apply to `abstract` as well as `transparent_abstract`. This is unfortunate, but I think it is worth it to get `abstract` in the profile (and therefore not misassign the time spent sending the subproof to the kernel). Another alternative would have been to add a dedicated entry to `ltac_call_kind` for `TacAbstract`, but I think it's better to just deal with coq#6404 all at once. The "better" solution here would have been to move `abstract` out of the Ltac syntax tree and define it via `TACTIC EXTEND` like `transparent_abstract`. However, the STM relies on its ability to recognize `abstract` and `solve [ abstract ... ]` syntactically so that it can handle `par: abstract`. Note that had to add locations to `TacAbstract` nodes, as I could not figure out how to call `push_trace` otherwise.
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2017
This closes coq#5082 and closes coq#5778, but makes coq#6404 apply to `abstract` as well as `transparent_abstract`. This is unfortunate, but I think it is worth it to get `abstract` in the profile (and therefore not misassign the time spent sending the subproof to the kernel). Another alternative would have been to add a dedicated entry to `ltac_call_kind` for `TacAbstract`, but I think it's better to just deal with coq#6404 all at once. The "better" solution here would have been to move `abstract` out of the Ltac syntax tree and define it via `TACTIC EXTEND` like `transparent_abstract`. However, the STM relies on its ability to recognize `abstract` and `solve [ abstract ... ]` syntactically so that it can handle `par: abstract`. Note that had to add locations to `TacAbstract` nodes, as I could not figure out how to call `push_trace` otherwise.
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2017
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Dec 12, 2017
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Dec 14, 2017
This closes coq#5082 and closes coq#5778, but makes coq#6404 apply to `abstract` as well as `transparent_abstract`. This is unfortunate, but I think it is worth it to get `abstract` in the profile (and therefore not misassign the time spent sending the subproof to the kernel). Another alternative would have been to add a dedicated entry to `ltac_call_kind` for `TacAbstract`, but I think it's better to just deal with coq#6404 all at once. The "better" solution here would have been to move `abstract` out of the Ltac syntax tree and define it via `TACTIC EXTEND` like `transparent_abstract`. However, the STM relies on its ability to recognize `abstract` and `solve [ abstract ... ]` syntactically so that it can handle `par: abstract`. Note that had to add locations to `TacAbstract` nodes, as I could not figure out how to call `push_trace` otherwise.
jfehrle
pushed a commit
to jfehrle/coq
that referenced
this issue
Feb 11, 2018
This closes coq#5082 and closes coq#5778, but makes coq#6404 apply to `abstract` as well as `transparent_abstract`. This is unfortunate, but I think it is worth it to get `abstract` in the profile (and therefore not misassign the time spent sending the subproof to the kernel). Another alternative would have been to add a dedicated entry to `ltac_call_kind` for `TacAbstract`, but I think it's better to just deal with coq#6404 all at once. The "better" solution here would have been to move `abstract` out of the Ltac syntax tree and define it via `TACTIC EXTEND` like `transparent_abstract`. However, the STM relies on its ability to recognize `abstract` and `solve [ abstract ... ]` syntactically so that it can handle `par: abstract`. Note that had to add locations to `TacAbstract` nodes, as I could not figure out how to call `push_trace` otherwise.
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Mar 24, 2018
JasonGross
added a commit
to JasonGross/coq
that referenced
this issue
Apr 2, 2018
ppedrot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
kind: user messages
Improvement of error messages, new warnings, etc.
part: ltac
Issues and PRs related to the Ltac tactic language.
Version
8.7.0
Description of the problem
I expect to see
a
andb
in the trace.This seems to be semi-intentional, as there is a function specifically dedicated to doing this:
coq/plugins/ltac/tactic_debug.ml
Lines 387 to 398 in 78e3385
I think it is right to coalesce sequenced
Tacexpr.LtacNotationCall
andTacexpr.LtacMLCall
nodes, but wrong to skip all subsequent calls.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: