I'm trying to get a good grip on the result using

Unconfined

to try and keep stacks neat. Namely I'd like to use an unconfined consumer to keep the producer on the stack trace, But I think there's a races making my life hard. AFAIK the contract with unconfined is so weak (and is aimed at performance, not debugability) that perhaps this isn't a bug per se, but Id still like to see it. Proof-of-concept: https://gist.github.com/Groostav/f8ef01ed830c14c394ac5b992d981aa1 if you put a breakpoint on

send

and walk-through the the downstack implementation it will eventually invoke the receiver, If you just run the test, on my machine, the

runBlocking

event loop will invoke the receiver.

It is because you have a race in your code. Callstack depends on whether

send

completes before line with

GlobalScope.launch(Dispatchers.Unconfined)

is executed or after. Moreover, during nested unconfined calls,

kx.coroutines

does some magic and unrolls the stack in order to avoid possible stack overflows

@Vsevolod Tolstopyatov [JB] I dont suppose this stands a chance of becoming a

CoroutineContext

element, such that I could specify some tree of coroutines has this enabled in production? I want this because the majority of my coroutines, including javafx click handlers and this library I'm working on simply aren't performance sensitive, and would stand to gain a lot if the stack trace included the

bubbling click event

as the ultimate "caused by" rather than an opaque

Platform.runLater

kicked off by some resume method