From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Han-Wen Nienhuys" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Race condition in threading code? Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:41:41 -0300 Message-ID: References: <2bc5f8210808161142n2b415569y8499f3efafb4a@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: hanwen@xs4all.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219813191 5474 80.91.229.12 (27 Aug 2008 04:59:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:59:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Andy Wingo" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 27 07:00:43 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KYD98-0007R6-MC for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:00:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39746 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYD8A-0000yp-IZ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:59:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KY96Y-0001lk-5j for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:41:46 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KY96V-0001kA-RN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:41:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54496 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KY96V-0001k0-Lo for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:41:43 -0400 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:45781) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KY96V-0002IB-6U for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:41:43 -0400 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m34so1025545wag.10 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:41:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=saLnzlQVavIAJKPtoe8W2o0cUkBSresrX1k9EdgX/80=; b=a7VBDB0gGlw45/MZsZzKTwPQGFByC8emkGjSWV1rbI6DOKpEEqEodC14qC+PS9+XCT F+VTHrLSyGqay8lwxgP6i8q/hBPfc8+yTrVYRAEgpTkvQ4xzLr6JDi7yxO/Xy43UYqIw cSJ1MqlwkeKeWXAWs2jmfz0JrEG+cU20xrm3k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=FBGnzxcFPAURF/YFiRH0OxBpYozBRIMX4gauKY7R9TWSbxDWerdz69XYMsAeif4u+u YbHwW7sd64I9E2GNvijFrDXdRuA0S3hWScBN0VrOuTz1rEJ+0sZVEiswAmPy03IPoU7Y 0bXN98yi/TkTEd/HTG0Q211t6yN68J7wrQWqg= Original-Received: by 10.114.53.1 with SMTP id b1mr5409687waa.165.1219797702053; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.115.109.8 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:41:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:59:36 -0400 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7511 Archived-At: It could be an existing problem that is exposed by the new tighter allocation. With a larger heap, there are larger intervals between recollection of the heap. Let me run this through DEBUGINFO when I get the chance. On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat 16 Aug 2008 11:45, Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > >> Julian Graham escreveu: >>> Hmmm... I don't recall seeing those when I was writing that test >>> suite. Just to be clear, were you getting those errors before making >>> your changes? >> >> No, but some very unrelated changes made them go away again. > > I still get that error, having merged master into vm. Do you have other > fixes? > > The original error that you had, reflowed: > > ERROR: srfi-18.test: thread-start!: > thread activates only after start > - arguments: ((syntax-error "memoization" > "In file ~S, line ~S: ~A ~S in expression ~S." > ("/home/lilydev/vc/guile/srfi/srfi-18.scm" 135 > "Bad binding" ct > (let (ct (current-thread)) > #@let (or (hashq-ref thread-exception-handlers ct) > (hashq-set! thread-exception-handlers ct > (list initial-handler))))) #f)) > > Bad binding with an #@let???? This would seem to indicate that a > memoized cell was not marked, and was then swept/re-used. > > Andy > -- > http://wingolog.org/ > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen