[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] (hopefully) fix the massive random Salmone

From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] (hopefully) fix the massive random Salmonella breakage
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 21:24:12 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 08:06:29AM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
> On 2015-10-04 14:55, Peter Bex wrote:
> > Cool.  Have you been able to reproduce the crash (without patch) at all?
> Yeah, by simply running `make check` in a loop until it fails. It
> doesn't usually take more than 10 or 12 runs to hit the error (and only
> one or two when inside a VM).

Ah, that's interesting.  Good to know!

> > > Just two minor things: (1) it looks like one too many words is allocated
> > > for the C_apply_values argvector
> > 
> > The argvector holds the continuation followed by each item in the
> > argument list, which is why I added 1 to it.
> Yes, but that +1 is already done once before the C_demand (line 7304
> after applying the first patch), then done again in the argument to
> C_alloc (line 7309). I think only the first one is necessary; that way
> we'll be C_alloc'ing the same amount that's C_demand'ed, and that's used
> for the eventual C_do_apply call, (+ (length lst) 1).

I overlooked that.  Thanks for pointing it out!  You're right of course,
and I'm now convinced that your first patch is fine as well.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]