No, unfortunately. The function in question was fairly defensive with 7 "is this pointer in range?" checks. The main bug was that it needed 8.
At Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:43:23 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > Is there anything to learn about this bug that could lead to avoiding such > bugs in the future? Perhaps some simple property that was being violated > that one could write a checker for (maybe running Racket in some debug > mode)? > > Robby > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:23:37 -0600, Doug Williams wrote: > > > I did have DrRacket crash twice on startup. I'm running the 64-bit > > version > > > under Windows 8 64-bit. > > > > The stars have aligned this morning! > > > > We've had reports of crashes specific to 64-bit Windows, but I had not > > been able to replicate the crash. This morning, it turns out that I'm > > able to provoke a crash easily and consistently (by trying the same > > things that I've always been trying). > > > > That crash that I see in the stack-unwinding code for generating JIT > > stack traces, which is Win64-specific and added September 2012 (after > > v5.3, before v5.3.1). That functionality is particularly likely to be > > triggered when you Run or Check Syntax a program. The bugs could easily > > manifest as either an immediate crash or a freeze. And the bugs could > > easily have no effect, depending on Racket thread scheduling and the > > layout of the stack. So, I think this bug is consistent with all of the > > reports. > > > > Even better, it turns out that I spent much of yesterday staring at the > > stack-unwinding code (for ARM), so the details were all paged in. > > > > I've pushed a repair, and I'll ping you when a build is ready to try out. > > > > _________________________ > > Racket Developers list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
