[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 20:08:26 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:01:13PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> Am 26.11.2015 um 11:34 schrieb Peter Bex:
> >> Error: (assq) bad argument type: #<invalid immediate object>
> > Do you also get this when compiling said code with the 4.10.1 snapshot?
> I get the same strange segfaults from 4.10.1 snapshot (plus both the
> mutex-related fixes I posted these days as they are essential to work
> long enough).

Hi Joerg,

Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to debug this without some kind
of reproducible test case.

If we can't have that, a full unoptimised build's stack trace would be
useful instead of the truncated snippet full of "optimised out" values
you posted.  But only if you have the C code that goes along with it,
because f_1234 doesn't mean anything without being able to look at the
C code: different compiler flags and different versions of CHICKEN will
cause it to generate completely different C output.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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