From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Debugging hints wanted Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:27:17 +0200 Message-ID: <877ic5okm2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20080204171945.4175db40@altosw.be> <20080204214003.GB2646@stratocaster.home> <1214844983.6032.96.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87zlp2g15m.fsf@gnu.org> <1214907252.6032.130.camel@localhost.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1214915288 17685 80.91.229.12 (1 Jul 2008 12:28:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:28:08 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 01 14:28:48 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KDeyK-0007UJ-Rg for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:28:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60213 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KDexT-0005ZC-Dn for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:27:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KDexH-0005UN-Ta for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:27:32 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KDexG-0005TL-20 for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:27:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34216 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KDexF-0005TD-RP for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:27:29 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:45425 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KDexE-0004Ss-Ta for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:27:29 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KDexC-0000Ic-9t for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:27:26 +0000 Original-Received: from 193.50.110.120 ([193.50.110.120]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:27:26 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by 193.50.110.120 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:27:26 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.50.110.120 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 14 Messidor an 216 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ou5f1QpKS540ohcX1QBFotF9sL0= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6619 Archived-At: Hi, Roland Orre writes: > That's a good hint. I'll check out the code and see if I can locate > the changes. Problem is that I've considered switching a few years, > but since the array API changed from 1.8 it would imply a major rework, > possibly causing other issues as the old array API is used in > hundreds of places in my code, and there may be other API changes > as well. The array API has been the same in all releases of the 1.8.x series. >> > My bigger problem though is frequently occurring >> > segmentation faults or otherwise corrupt pointers. >> > >> > If I then run the code in gdb I can get >> > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> > [Switching to Thread 0x2ae316e4f070 (LWP 6699)] >> > 0x00002ae314b9d091 in scm_gc_mark_dependencies (p=0x97c) at >> > gc-mark.c:441 >> > 441 if (SCM_GC_MARK_P (ptr)) >> > Current language: auto; currently c >> >> Likewise, is it reproducible? Can you show the full backtrace (it >> should show where 0x97c comes from)? > > This is fully reproducible when it happens as shown. Most often > I get a segmentation fault like this. I have attached a full > gdb backtrace from this. This can be produced over and over > with only base address differences. The backtrace shows this is called from `scm_mark_locations ()', which would indicate the stack contains the offending bogus pointer, which is bad. Can you please try that out with 1.8.5? Thanks, Ludovic.