From @masak

<masak> I've found a case where a line number is one-off. should I nopaste it?
<jnthn> masak​: please
<masak> I don't think it's the fault of the new backtraces thing, to be honest.
<masak> more like a result of parsing or something.
<jnthn> Well, the other thing is that we don't have as many :node($/)s
in Actions.pm as we maybe should.
<jnthn> So could very well be some wins to be had by some careful
extra scattering of those.
<masak> http://gist.github.com/418990

(inlined here)

$ cat one-off
sub bar {
  pfff
}

bar

$ perl6 one-off
Could not find sub &pfff
in 'bar' at line 1​:one-off
in main program body at line 6​:one-off

<jnthn> masak​: curious
<jnthn> masak​: Does it get it right if you do pfff() ?
<jnthn> as in, add parens?
* masak tries
* jnthn had a test very much like that which got it right
<masak> no.
<jnthn> ok
<masak> maybe it sees the statement as starting on line 1, or something?
<jnthn> That's very possible.
<jnthn> I just thought that it'd been getting it right.
<jnthn> (I had a very similar test case...)
* jnthn plays spot the difference
<jnthn> masak​: hmm, I agree it seems to be one off there.
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> masak​: Think it may be a Parrot fix.
<jnthn> masak​: Thing is, the annotations in the PIR look correct.
<jnthn> Trying my first guess at a patch now.
<masak> I'll include that in the Rakudobug. :)

From @jnthn

On Sun May 30 05​:44​:14 2010, masak wrote​:

<masak> I've found a case where a line number is one-off. should I
nopaste it?
<jnthn> masak​: please
<masak> I don't think it's the fault of the new backtraces thing, to
be honest.
<masak> more like a result of parsing or something.
<jnthn> Well, the other thing is that we don't have as many :node($/)s
in Actions.pm as we maybe should.
<jnthn> So could very well be some wins to be had by some careful
extra scattering of those.
<masak> http://gist.github.com/418990

(inlined here)

$ cat one-off
sub bar {
pfff
}

bar

$ perl6 one-off
Could not find sub &pfff
in 'bar' at line 1​:one-off
in main program body at line 6​:one-off

<jnthn> masak​: curious
<jnthn> masak​: Does it get it right if you do pfff() ?
<jnthn> as in, add parens?
* masak tries
* jnthn had a test very much like that which got it right
<masak> no.
<jnthn> ok
<masak> maybe it sees the statement as starting on line 1, or
something?
<jnthn> That's very possible.
<jnthn> I just thought that it'd been getting it right.
<jnthn> (I had a very similar test case...)
* jnthn plays spot the difference
<jnthn> masak​: hmm, I agree it seems to be one off there.
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> masak​: Think it may be a Parrot fix.
<jnthn> masak​: Thing is, the annotations in the PIR look correct.
<jnthn> Trying my first guess at a patch now.
<masak> I'll include that in the Rakudobug. :)

We needed a Parrot tweak which I did a couple of days back - but that
only got us off by one in the *other* direction because it emitted the
right annotation, but we were emitting the wrong line number in it.
Grrr. Anyway, today I nailed it with a little tweak in Rakudo, so now​:

C​:\Consulting\rakudo>type test.p6
sub bar {
pfff
}

bar

C​:\Consulting\rakudo>perl6 test.p6
Could not find sub &pfff
  in 'bar' at line 2​:test.p6
  in main program body at line 5​:test.p6

Which is spot on. \o/

Given to moritz++ for testing.

Thanks,

Jonathan

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

@moritz - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'

From @kyleha

This is an automatically generated mail to inform you that tests are now available in t/spec/integration/error-reporting.t

commit cc81e350331b3b471eb2b9a6c79f1959406b8619
Author​: moritz <moritz@​c213334d-75ef-0310-aa23-eaa082d1ae64>
Date​: Sat Jun 5 21​:22​:15 2010 +0000

  [t/spec] test for RT #​75446, offby1 line number report for non-existing sub calls
 
  git-svn-id​: http://svn.pugscode.org/pugs@&#8203;31134 c213334d-75ef-0310-aa23-eaa082d1ae64

diff --git a/t/spec/integration/error-reporting.t b/t/spec/integration/error-reporting.t
index b3fc71f..1167dfc 100644
--- a/t/spec/integration/error-reporting.t
+++ b/t/spec/integration/error-reporting.t
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 use v6;
 use Test;
 
-plan 3;
+plan 4;
 
 BEGIN { @*INC.push('t/spec/packages') };
 
@@ -23,5 +23,18 @@ is_run "use v6;\n\nsay 'Hello';\nsay 'a'.my_non_existent_method_6R5();",
     {
         status  => { $_ != 0 },
         out     => /Hello\r?\n/,
-        err     => all(rx/my_non_existent_method_6R5/ & rx/:i 'line 4'/),
+        err     => all(rx/my_non_existent_method_6R5/, rx/:i 'line 4'/),
     }, 'Method not found error mentions method name and line number';
+
+# RT #75446
+is_run 'use v6;
+sub bar {
+    pfff();
+}
+
+bar()',
+    {
+        status => { $_ != 0 },
+        out     => '',
+        err     => all(rx/pfff/, rx/'line 3'>>/),
+    }, 'got the right line number for nonexisting sub inside another sub';