rr VS rustfmt

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 author provides very surface-level criticism of two Rust tools, but they don't look into why those choices were made.

With about five minutes of my time, I found out:

wrap_comments was introduced in 2019 [0]. There are bugs in the implementation (it breaks Markdown tables), so the option hasn't been marked as stable. Progress on the issue has been spotty.

--no-merge-sources is not trivial to re-implement [1]. The author has already explained why the flag no longer works -- Cargo integrated the command, but not all of the flags. This commit [2] explains why this functionality was removed in the first place.

Rust is open source, so the author of this blog post could improve the state of the software they care about by championing these issues. The --no-merge-sources error message even encourages you to open an issue, presumably so that the authors of Cargo can gauge the importance of certain flags/features.

You could even do something much simpler, like adding a comment to the related issues mentioning that you ran into these rough edges and that it made your life a little worse, or with a workaround that you found.

Alternatively, you can continue to write about how much free software sucks.

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/3347

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/10344

[2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/commit/3842d8e6f20067f716...

The new style still supports single line let-else, and there is a configuration parameter to make it be on one line also for longer lines.

It seems there is an issue about this dating all the way back from 2018 but yet it still hasn't been fixed.

However since 4179 recent versions should merge configuration files. Not sure what the details / specifics are but if just ignoring the file entirely is not good enough you might give it its own directory and rustfmt.toml file and see if that works.

Could this be be #3863 - Gives up on chains if any line is too long? It might not be, because I can't see a specific "line" that's too long to format, but there's more detail about the exact problem in the issue.

Rustfmt is a tool that formats Rust code in compliance with style guidelines. Its name precisely reflects its purpose. To install rustfmt, you can run rustup component add rustfmt. Once installed, you can execute cargo fmt to format Rust code in your workspace. If you require further information, you can visit rustfmt’s GitHub repository.

code must be formatted with rustfmt.

Yes, some cases are not yet supported (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/4914).

Just FYI, the let-else suggestions will only work until rustfmt settles on a format for it. So you may be surprised when this happens and it suddenly changes.