Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

No, Peter, you're right.  It does not crash hard enough to get a core dup.

But many thanks for your help on interpreting the message.

In fact assuming a stack corruption would explain it at least.
Especially since I'm observing various strange error messages
since I updated to chicken 4.8.2.

What worries me it that these are all within age old code.
In fact nothing serious has changed since about a year.
(By serious I mean, nothing, which would resort to FFI
or similar.  And a few changes to pure r5rs scheme code
should not corrupt the stack.)

I still can go back to 4.7.5.  This runs just fine.
But that's not of any help to testing the new chicken, is it?

/Jörg

On Mar 10 2013, Peter Bex wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 01:33:50PM +0100, Christian Kellermann wrote:
> > * Jörg F. Wittenberger <address@hidden> [130309 12:26]:
> > > I'm afraid I have no idea how I could boil this down to a reproducible
> > > case.
> > > 
> > > I've seen it once so far in a logfile of a process, which xreates
> > > approximately 2000000 threads a day when communicating over WAN
> > > with about ten peers plus all those public web access (approx.
> > > since chicken does not have unique thread numbers, but rscheme
> > > does; when I run the rscheme version instead I see thos 2^6 threads;
> > > though the chicken version has a different runtime behavior and does
> > > not share 100% of the code, hence it could use a different amount of
> > > threads.)
> >
> > I am confused. I thought you were wondering about a compilation
> > message you get during the flow analysis of the scrutinizer.
>
> As I understood it, it's an exception's message upon an error at
> runtime.  I think this may be an off-by-one error somewhere resulting
> in data corruption.  I've seen similar mystifying error messages when
> the stack wasn't quite right; alomst everything is fine except it tells
> you something is wrong.
>
> You're right; if this can't be easily reproduced, we're unlikely to find
> a root cause.  A core dump and access to the machine might help, but
> I'm unsure it crashes this hard.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter