[Top][All Lists]

[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?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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