Re: Segmentation fault

[Neil Jerram]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I believe the patch below is the correct fix for this.  Please test
>> and/or comment!
>
> Works like a charm!

Thanks for trying it.

>> +2007-10-19  Neil Jerram  <address@hidden>
>> +
>> +    * standalone/test-use-srfi: Use -q to avoid picking up the user's
>> +    ~/.guile file.
>
> Thanks for taking care of this one too!

I repro'd Frank's problem by adding the force/error expression to my
.guile.  Then, after fixing that, I ran make check, and just couldn't
understand (for a while) which test-use-srfi started failing... :-)

> (I had forgotten about it, which may be an indication that we should
> really start using the bug tracker.)

What would that involve?

> Could we hide the backtrace, because it's always a bit scary to see a
> backtrace in the middle of the "PASS" lines?  Something like:
>
>   (with-output-to-port (%make-void-port "w")
>     (lambda ()
>       ...
>       (display-backtrace)

Yes, I meant to do that but forgot.  No need for with-output-to-port
though; just need to change the second arg of display-backtrace to
(%make-void-port "w").

> Alternatively, could `unmemoize-expr' somehow be used for the test?

I looked at that, but couldn't work out what unmemoize-expr's args
should be.  Also, this would make the test depart further from the
reported scenario.  So I think best to stick with using
display-backtrace.

> Perhaps the `debug-enable' and `debug-disable' could be in a
> `dynamic-wind', but that's not big deal.

Yes, I'll do that.  There's a couple of places in the tests that use
debug-enable/disable like this, so it's worth adding a
with-debugging-evaluator form to (test-suite lib).

> Thanks,
> Ludovic.

Regards,
        Neil