[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined
From: |
P Pareit |
Subject: |
Re: problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:01:30 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.2 |
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 09:04 pm, you wrote:
> P Pareit <address@hidden> writes:
> > Tried and failed, it does compile but I get a segment fault at
> > startup and scm_internal_cwdr_no_unwind shows up in the
> > backtrace. So I think this is the problem.
>
> Hmm. I tried my version of scm_internal_cwdr_no_unwind with guile-gtk
> and it did work without problems. Are you sure that you don't run
>
> into this:
> > > This will _only_ work when HANDLER does not do a non-local exit (via
> > > longjmp, or similar). If you want to support that (which I
> > > recommend), you need to defer running HANDLER (with the same trick
> > > that scm_internal_cwdr uses) until scm_dynwinds has been restored.
>
> Could you try this version: (yeah, I could download Scwm and do this
> myself, but... ;)
>
> SCM
> scm_internal_cwdr_no_unwind (scm_catch_body_t body, void *body_data,
> scm_catch_handler_t handler, void *handler_data,
> SCM_STACKITEM *stack_start)
> {
> return scm_internal_cwdr (body, body_data, handler, handler_data,
> stack_start);
> }
>
> That version is not very interesting but it will ket us see whether
> the bug is with scm_internal_cwdr_no_unwind or with some other part of
> Scwm or Guile.
>
Well, it gave me absolutly the same bactrace as before:
(gdb) backtrace
#0 0x4007bd5c in scm_hook_empty_p (hook=0x0) at hooks.c:227
#1 0x0806069e in scwm_handle_error (data=0x809023a, tag=0x80a8f50,
throw_args=0x404825a8) at callbacks.c:501
#2 0x400a0811 in scm_internal_catch (tag=0x2374, body=0x400a0a30 <cwss_body>,
body_data=0xbffff240, handler=0x8060650 <scwm_handle_error>,
handler_data=0x809023a) at throw.c:200
#3 0x400a0aae in scm_internal_stack_catch (tag=0x40497c38, body=0,
body_data=0x0, handler=0x8060650 <scwm_handle_error>,
handler_data=0x809023a) at throw.c:330
#4 0x08060550 in scwm_body_eval_str (body_data=0x8092120) at callbacks.c:451
#5 0x400a0839 in scm_internal_catch (tag=0x2374,
body=0x80604e0 <scwm_body_eval_str>, body_data=0x8092120,
handler=0x40094160 <cwdr_handler>, handler_data=0xbffff3e0) at throw.c:205
#6 0x400942a4 in scm_internal_cwdr (body=0x80604e0 <scwm_body_eval_str>,
body_data=0x8092120, handler=0x805686c <scm_handle_by_message_noexit>,
handler_data=0x809023a, stack_start=0x0) at root.c:283
#7 0x0806ef4f in scm_internal_cwdr_no_unwind (
body=0x80604e0 <scwm_body_eval_str>, body_data=0x8092120,
handler=0x805686c <scm_handle_by_message_noexit>, handler_data=0x809023a,
stack_start=0xbffff464) at guile-compat.c:64
#8 0x08060782 in scwm_safe_eval_str (
string=0x8092120 "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(use-modules (app scwm
optargs))\n\n(define-public guile-version (+ (string->number (major-version))
\n\t\t\t\t(/ (string->number (minor-version)) 10)))\n\n\n\n(if (>
guile-version 1.3)\n (setvbuf (cur"...) at callbacks.c:532
#9 0x0807f55d in scwm_main (argc=134932312, argv=0x5b) at scwm.c:1220
#10 0x40072ebe in gh_launch_pad (closure=0x807ed20, argc=1, argv=0xbffff944)
at gh_init.c:60
#11 0x4007c987 in invoke_main_func (body_data=0x0) at init.c:636
#12 0x4007c942 in scm_boot_guile_1 (base=0xbffff88c, closure=0xbffff890)
at init.c:616
#13 0x4007c63b in scm_boot_guile (argc=0, argv=0x0, main_func=0, closure=0x0)
at init.c:440
#14 0x40072ef9 in gh_enter (argc=1, argv=0xbffff944,
c_main_prog=0x807ed20 <scwm_main>) at gh_init.c:70
#15 0x0807ed0b in main (argc=1, argv=0xbffff944) at scwm.c:607
#16 0x4030c082 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
(gdb)
The problem seems to start at #8, I wonder what happens if something goes
wrong in the evaluation of "(use-modules (...))".
>
> I've contacted the Scwm developers as well, but I would be happy if
> you could continue to handle this.
Yes, I will. One of the things that I might best do, is to write an a small as
possible program that uses guile in the same way as scwm now.
pieter;
- problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined, P Pareit, 2002/09/09
- Re: problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined, P Pareit, 2002/09/10
- Re: problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined, Marius Vollmer, 2002/09/10
- Re: problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined, Steve Tell, 2002/09/15
- Re: problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined, Rob Browning, 2002/09/16
- Re: problem becouse scm_tc7_contin is not defined, Marius Vollmer, 2002/09/16
- 1.4 vs. 1.5.x vs 1.6 snarfingdefined, Steve Tell, 2002/09/19