Stick this in a file (say, printfile.py):

    print __file__

If I run it as "python printfile.py" using Python 2.4, 2.5 or 2.6 it prints as expected, e.g.:

    % python ~/tmp/printfile.py
    /Users/skip/tmp/printfile.py

If, however, I run it under control of the trace module I get something entirely different:

    % python -m trace --count ~/tmp/printfile.py
    /Users/skip/local/lib/python2.6/trace.py
    % python -m trace --trace ~/tmp/printfile.py
     --- modulename: threading, funcname: settrace
    threading.py(70):     _trace_hook = func
     --- modulename: trace, funcname: <module>
    <string>(1):   --- modulename: trace, funcname: <module>
    printfile.py(1): print __file__
    /Users/skip/local/lib/python2.6/trace.py

Definitely looks buggy to me...

I believe this is because the trace module calls execfile()
to run the file.  I'm not sure if there's an easy fix for
this problem.

Hmmm...  Maybe not so hard after all.  See attached diff.  Does anyone see a problem with simply overwriting the trace module's __file__ attribute?

File Added: trace.diff

Wouldn't it be better for trace.main() to call
Tracer.runctx() instead of Tracer.run()?  That
way you could use a copy of __main__.__dict__
for locals and globals and overwrite the filename
there.  Note that your solution would still report
the wrong filename if someone called tracer.main()
from his own main script.

Fixed in r83393 with explicit globals that also specify __name__.