[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] How to interpret chicken post mortem?
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] How to interpret chicken post mortem? |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:34:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:29:20AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> Something is definitely wrong at master and it is non-deterministic.
>
> I may be able to help narrowing this down, since I get these segfaults
> within minutes. But I lack any idea what to look for by now.
>
> Most of the time I get a segfault, that is. (NB: No matter whether or
> not I run with -:S the segfault is never caught.)
>
> Sometimes I just get weird results. This also happened in csc, though
> only once while compiling 102 modules totaling ~100000 lines of code:
>
> ====
> Note: in toplevel procedure `cntrl#ball-control-default':
> expected value of type boolean in conditional but were given a value
> of type
> `string' which is always true:
>
> (if (let ((g10816 key)) (trstcntl#x509-subject-hash cert))
> (let ((t10269 ...)) (let (...) (util#remove-file ...)))
> (##core#undefined))
>
> Error: (assq) bad argument type: #<invalid immediate object>
Do you also get this when compiling said code with the 4.10.1 snapshot?
Cheers,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[Chicken-hackers] Diagnosis for; How to interpret chicken post mortem?, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2015/11/29