rr VS proposal-ptc-syntax

I think this tool must share a lot techniques and use cases with rr. I wonder how it compares in various aspects.

https://rr-project.org/

rr "sells" as a "reversible debugger", but it obviously needs the determinism for its record and replay to work, and AFAIK it employs similar techniques regarding system call interception and serializing on a single CPU. The reversible debugger aspect is built on periodic snapshotting on top of it and replaying from those snapshots, AFAIK. They package it in a gdb compatible interface.

Hermit also lists record/replay as a motivation, although it doesn't list reversible debugging in general.

Interesting. Perhaps you can inspect the disassembly of the function in question when using Graal and HotSpot. It is likely related to that.

Another debugging technique we use for heisenbugs is to see if `rr` [1] can reproduce it. If it can then that's great as it allows you to go back in time to debug what may have caused the bug. But `rr` is often not great for concurrency bugs since it emulates a single-core machine. Though debugging a VM is generally a nightmare. What we desperately need is a debugger that can debug both the VM and the language running on top of it. Usually it's one or the other.

> In general I’d argue you haven’t fixed a bug unless you understand why it happened and why your fix worked, which makes this frustrating, since every indication is that the bug exists within proprietary code that is out of my reach.

Were you using Oracle GraalVM? GraalVM community edition is open source, so maybe it's worth checking if it is reproducible in that.

[1]: https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr

https://rr-project.org/ had the same problem. They use the retired conditional branch counter instead of instruction counter, and then instruction steeping until at the correct address.

That'll work great for your Distributed QSort Incorporated startup, where the only product is a sorting algorithm.

Formal software verification is very useful. But what can be usefully formalized is rather limited, and what can be formalized correctly in practice is even more limited. That means you need to restrict your scope to something sane and useful. As a result, in the real world running thousands of tests is practically useful. (Well, it depends on what those tests are; it's easy to write 1000s of tests that either test the same thing, or only test the things that will pass and not the things that would fail.) They are especially useful if running in a mode where the unexpected happens often, as it sounds like this system can do. (It's reminiscent of rr's chaos mode -- https://rr-project.org/ linking to https://robert.ocallahan.org/2016/02/introducing-rr-chaos-mo... )

The approach of check-pointing computation such that it is resumable and restartable sounds similar to a time-traveling debugger, like rr or WinDbg:

https://rr-project.org/

https://learn.microsoft.com/windows-hardware/drivers/debugge...

https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr?tab=readme-ov-file#system-...

The proposal of "syntactic tail calls" to provide an explicit syntax for tail calls, co-championed by committee members from Mozilla (responsible for SpiderMonkey, the engine of Firefox) and Microsoft, was a response to these concerns. However, this proposal is now listed among the TC39's inactive proposals, possibly due to diminished interest, which may stem from the infrequent use of tail recursive functions in JavaScript.

This is not actually about Tail Call Optimisation, which is more flexible and optional matter of optimisation, but about Proper Tail Calls, which are actually part of the ECMAScript 6 specification (over implementer objections)—in strict mode, calls in tail position must not create additional stack frames. This is the last piece of ECMAScript 6 that most engines haven’t implemented, because it’s rather controversial: it actually causes some performance problems, and makes debugging harder, and may have security issues (in 2016, Mozilla declared it impossible to implement across realm boundaries due to their security model).

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-ptc-syntax has a lot of useful information about it all, and a proposal to make it explicit in syntax, such as with `return continue …`.

(Fun terminology problems here. The term TCO is commonly used for PTC, and PTC is very close to being a subset of TCO, but the mandatory stack frame elision which ruins debugging feels to me like it falls outside of TCO. In various situations, debuggers will mark things like “stack frame omitted” when they’ve optimised one out of existence, but you can generally compile things differently, or something like that, to prevent this. But with PTC, it feels like the engine is kinda not even allowed to know that a stack frames may be absent. So I say PTC and TCO are a little distinct, though PTC is mostly just a subset of TCO. Reminds me of the terminology of tree-shaking versus dead code removal—where the former is essentially a subset of the latter, but that the effects are just slightly different, though I’d say it’s more slight in that case than this.)

4. Proposed something else [ https://github.com/tc39/proposal-ptc-syntax ]

While apple is against Syntactic tail calls, they’re mainly just opposed to versions of it that would remove/unrequire the tail-call optimisation they already do: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/535

For the version of it that is backwards compatible, they wouldn’t need to do anything other than recognise it as valid syntax. Their main concern is that it "could add confusion with very little benefit."

The spec for STC has a critique of PTC:

- performance

- developer tools

- Error.stack

- cross-realm tail calls

- developer intent

See: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-ptc-syntax#issues-with-ptc

Apple's 2016 response as to why they won't implement STC is here: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/535

- STC is part of the spec and will take too long to change.

- Now that they've implemented support for PTC, they don't want to regress web pages that rely on it.

- They don't want to discourage vendors from implementing PTC by agreeing to STC.

- They don't want to introduce confusion.

Some of these arguments about confusion and delays seem wrong hindsight, since on every point things would have been better if they'd just agreed to the compromise of STC.

- It would have been part of the spec years ago

- STC would have had a clear way for web pages to know when tail calls could be relied on (and PTC would have been optional)

- Other vendors didn't implement PTC in any case, despite no agreement on STC

- There's even more confusion as things are now

You can see a direct example of this with Proper Tail Calls (PTC). It was added to the ECMAScript spec in 2015 as part of es6, but as of today - 7 years later - only Safari has shipped it*. As a result it is effectively not a thing in JavaScript, and the followup proposal meant to address issues with PTC ("Syntactic Tail Calls") has been basically ignored because PTC is already in the spec.

V8 implemented tail call optimization in the past, and the V8 team backed the TC39 proposal for syntactic tail calls (where you'd write return continue func() to make the use of TCO explicit). In Node 6 and 7 we could use them with the flag --harmony-tailcalls. The feature was removed from Node 8 after that proposal didn't go anywhere, but it's interesting, and shows some interest.