Hi Tim, Patrick,

Thanks for your answers. I just realized that the mistake was totally mine. 
Basically I had changed the definition of the abstract type of the object 
in question. My apologies. I guess the possibility of storing the 
definition of the abstract type along with the object and/or more explicit 
error messages (it took me a while simply to understand that the segfault 
was caused by something related to HDF5) could be useful, although it is a 
pretty silly thing to do (changing the type and trying to load the object), 
so I am not looking for excuses!

At least now I know about debugging.md ;)

Ben

On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:49:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Holy wrote:
>
> First I've heard of this problem, and it's hard to debug without more 
> information. 
>
> If the problem appeared in v0.2.18, you could just say "git checkout 
> v0.2.17" 
> and see if that causes the segfaults to go away. 
>
> If you updated your Julia as well, of course the segfault could be there. 
>
> There are instructions on capturing backtraces in various places, for 
> example 
> the FAQ and (the nicest): https://gist.github.com/staticfloat/6188418 
>
> --Tim 
>
> On Friday, March 07, 2014 10:43:08 AM ben wrote: 
> > Hi everyone, 
> > 
> > A couple of days ago, a module I have been working on for some time 
> started 
> > throwing segmentation faults frequently and at random. After a lot of 
> > head-scratching, I found out that the HDF5 package was causing this. 
> > 
> > My module starts by loading (with HDF5) some data that I processed a 
> month 
> > or so ago and stored on my hard drive in native Julia format (with 
> HDF5). 
> > The files did not change but the package was updated. 
> > 
> > I am not saying that this is a bug in the HDF5 package: maybe the 
> package 
> > is not fully backward-compatible with old data, maybe I just need to 
> > re-process and re-store the data. I don't have the time to investigate 
> > right now so I am posting this hoping that it will save someone 
> redundant 
> > head-scratching :) 
> > 
> > Ben 
>

Reply via email to