Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
On Mar 17 2013, Peter Bex wrote: On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:32:57PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: In fact assuming a stack corruption would explain it at least. Especially since I'm observing various strange error messages since I updated to chicken 4.8.2. Does it happen often enough to perform a git bisect to track down the commit that introduced the bug? I want be able to do that for various reasons. a) As I mentioned before: the cataract is currently so bad that I can hardly make head or tail of screen space. (I missed a horse these days until it was as close as about 7 meters!) b) The use of git is particular tricky to me; I'd need to read up too much… se (a) before. c) I would have a hard time to figure when exactly problems arise. While they are frequent, I'm still changing code according to my understanding and test locally - this will not turn them up. Only then I roll out, which involves a none-cross compile at ARM and copying the resulting 10M executable to all ARM based hosts. This takes forever; I usually start the process just before I walk away from the screen. That would certainly help! Sure; I understand. Though little chance. I'm really sorry. /Jörg Cheers, Peter ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:32:57PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > In fact assuming a stack corruption would explain it at least. > Especially since I'm observing various strange error messages > since I updated to chicken 4.8.2. Does it happen often enough to perform a git bisect to track down the commit that introduced the bug? That would certainly help! Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
No, Peter, you're right. It does not crash hard enough to get a core dup. But many thanks for your help on interpreting the message. In fact assuming a stack corruption would explain it at least. Especially since I'm observing various strange error messages since I updated to chicken 4.8.2. What worries me it that these are all within age old code. In fact nothing serious has changed since about a year. (By serious I mean, nothing, which would resort to FFI or similar. And a few changes to pure r5rs scheme code should not corrupt the stack.) I still can go back to 4.7.5. This runs just fine. But that's not of any help to testing the new chicken, is it? /Jörg On Mar 10 2013, Peter Bex wrote: On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 01:33:50PM +0100, Christian Kellermann wrote: * Jörg F. Wittenberger [130309 12:26]: > I'm afraid I have no idea how I could boil this down to a reproducible > case. > > I've seen it once so far in a logfile of a process, which xreates > approximately 200 threads a day when communicating over WAN > with about ten peers plus all those public web access (approx. > since chicken does not have unique thread numbers, but rscheme > does; when I run the rscheme version instead I see thos 2^6 threads; > though the chicken version has a different runtime behavior and does > not share 100% of the code, hence it could use a different amount of > threads.) I am confused. I thought you were wondering about a compilation message you get during the flow analysis of the scrutinizer. As I understood it, it's an exception's message upon an error at runtime. I think this may be an off-by-one error somewhere resulting in data corruption. I've seen similar mystifying error messages when the stack wasn't quite right; alomst everything is fine except it tells you something is wrong. You're right; if this can't be easily reproduced, we're unlikely to find a root cause. A core dump and access to the machine might help, but I'm unsure it crashes this hard. Cheers, Peter ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 01:33:50PM +0100, Christian Kellermann wrote: > * Jörg F. Wittenberger [130309 12:26]: > > I'm afraid I have no idea how I could boil this down to a reproducible > > case. > > > > I've seen it once so far in a logfile of a process, which xreates > > approximately 200 threads a day when communicating over WAN > > with about ten peers plus all those public web access (approx. > > since chicken does not have unique thread numbers, but rscheme > > does; when I run the rscheme version instead I see thos 2^6 threads; > > though the chicken version has a different runtime behavior and does > > not share 100% of the code, hence it could use a different amount of > > threads.) > > I am confused. I thought you were wondering about a compilation > message you get during the flow analysis of the scrutinizer. As I understood it, it's an exception's message upon an error at runtime. I think this may be an off-by-one error somewhere resulting in data corruption. I've seen similar mystifying error messages when the stack wasn't quite right; alomst everything is fine except it tells you something is wrong. You're right; if this can't be easily reproduced, we're unlikely to find a root cause. A core dump and access to the machine might help, but I'm unsure it crashes this hard. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
* Jörg F. Wittenberger [130309 12:26]: > I'm afraid I have no idea how I could boil this down to a reproducible > case. > > I've seen it once so far in a logfile of a process, which xreates > approximately 200 threads a day when communicating over WAN > with about ten peers plus all those public web access (approx. > since chicken does not have unique thread numbers, but rscheme > does; when I run the rscheme version instead I see thos 2^6 threads; > though the chicken version has a different runtime behavior and does > not share 100% of the code, hence it could use a different amount of > threads.) > I am confused. I thought you were wondering about a compilation message you get during the flow analysis of the scrutinizer. And ripping out the offending definition with the corresponding code paths from your (include)'d file was what I was asking for. I fail to see how your runtime behaviour has any influence on that phenomenon. Still I don't want to question your judgement as I don't know the code. However I doubt that we are of much help without precise descriptions of what's actually happening. Without code this is highly improbable to be useful. I am sorry, Christian -- In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can surpass it. --- Lao Tzu ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
I'm afraid I have no idea how I could boil this down to a reproducible case. I've seen it once so far in a logfile of a process, which xreates approximately 200 threads a day when communicating over WAN with about ten peers plus all those public web access (approx. since chicken does not have unique thread numbers, but rscheme does; when I run the rscheme version instead I see thos 2^6 threads; though the chicken version has a different runtime behavior and does not share 100% of the code, hence it could use a different amount of threads.) sorry /Jörg On Mar 9 2013, Christian Kellermann wrote: * Jörg F. Wittenberger [130308 23:00]: (define (make-uri scheme authority path query fragment) (%make-uri (if (string? scheme) (string->symbol scheme) scheme) authority path query fragment)) Also: the code is pulled into the module via "include" and otherwise shared with rscheme. --> Any use of a "#" character in the code would make it unreadable to rscheme. Can you provide a minimal example which fails for you? This will make the bug hunt by magnitudes easier. Thanks! Christian ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
* Jörg F. Wittenberger [130308 23:00]: > (define (make-uri scheme authority path query fragment) > (%make-uri (if (string? scheme) (string->symbol scheme) scheme) >authority path query fragment)) > > Also: the code is pulled into the module via "include" and > otherwise shared with rscheme. --> Any use of a "#" character > in the code would make it unreadable to rscheme. Can you provide a minimal example which fails for you? This will make the bug hunt by magnitudes easier. Thanks! Christian -- In the world, there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong, nothing can surpass it. --- Lao Tzu ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
On Mar 8 2013, Moritz Heidkamp wrote: Hi Jörg, Jörg F. Wittenberger writes: So how would I interpret this message. As far as I can see, this tells me that somehow a typecheck failed on a (struct ) testing it to be a (struct ) -- which would have been supposed to succeed. Am I missing something I think your assessment is correct. Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest clue what might be the cause of this either. I assume you are not using ##sys#make-structure or anything to create instances of that record type but only the "proper" constructor? Yes. Even more restritive. The structure is defined like this (don't argue about correctness or whatever): (define-record-type (%make-uri scheme authority path query fragment) uri? (scheme uri-scheme) (authority uri-authority) (path uri-path) (query uri-query) (fragment uri-fragment)) and the only constructor exported from the module is: (define (make-uri scheme authority path query fragment) (%make-uri (if (string? scheme) (string->symbol scheme) scheme) authority path query fragment)) Also: the code is pulled into the module via "include" and otherwise shared with rscheme. --> Any use of a "#" character in the code would make it unreadable to rscheme. ((This double-checking is one of the more important reasons, why I have split my code into implementation dependent sections and protable parts.)) I really don't see a way, how I could accidentally mess with it. But: once upon a time I'm abserving strange things in the chicken process. I can't blame chicken so far. Though I tend to be tough on me - and still don't see where my code could fail there. -- Which is still not saying that there's nu bug lurking on my side. /Jörg . ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
Hi Jörg, Jörg F. Wittenberger writes: > So how would I interpret this message. As far as I can see, this > tells me that somehow a typecheck failed on a (struct ) > testing it to be a (struct ) -- which would have been supposed > to succeed. > > Am I missing something I think your assessment is correct. Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest clue what might be the cause of this either. I assume you are not using ##sys#make-structure or anything to create instances of that record type but only the "proper" constructor? Moritz ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
On Mar 7 2013, Peter Bex wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:44:28PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: So how would I interpret this message. As far as I can see, this tells me that somehow a typecheck failed on a (struct ) testing it to be a (struct ) -- which would have been supposed to succeed. Am I missing something Likely you've imported uri-generic or uri-common's definition of uri-path, which causes it to break. This expects an uri struct with a 'uri tag, not a ' tag. That's why the message is so Hardly. No, no. Those are not at my system at all. confusing: chicken adds #<...> around the name of the record type tag. HTH, Peter ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Re: [Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:44:28PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > So how would I interpret this message. As far as I can see, this > tells me that somehow a typecheck failed on a (struct ) > testing it to be a (struct ) -- which would have been supposed > to succeed. > > Am I missing something Likely you've imported uri-generic or uri-common's definition of uri-path, which causes it to break. This expects an uri struct with a 'uri tag, not a ' tag. That's why the message is so confusing: chicken adds #<...> around the name of the record type tag. HTH, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
[Chicken-hackers] strange error message, please help with interpretation
In my prog I have a structure (define-record-type ... (path uri-path) ...) --: Which happened to work for years so far. Unchanged :-- Now, after upgrading from 4.7.5 to 4.8.2 I found this in the log: bad argument type - not a structure of the required type (bad argument type - not a structure of the required type (#<> ) uri-path) That is, not always; it's still working much more than 99% of the time. So how would I interpret this message. As far as I can see, this tells me that somehow a typecheck failed on a (struct ) testing it to be a (struct ) -- which would have been supposed to succeed. Am I missing something Just too strange. Thanks a lot /Jörg ... ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
