Hi all,
When building Chicken 3.4.7 and higher (up to 3.5.2) on Ubuntu 8.10
x86_64 the chicken compiler goes into an infinite recursion. CPU
usage spikes, memory usage increases boundlessly, and no output is
ever produced. In Chicken 3.4.7 the file that when compiled triggers
this behaviour is u
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When building Chicken 3.4.7 and higher (up to 3.5.2) on Ubuntu 8.10
> x86_64 the chicken compiler goes into an infinite recursion. CPU
> usage spikes, memory usage increases boundlessly, and no output is
> ever produced. In Chic
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:45:10PM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > When building Chicken 3.4.7 and higher (up to 3.5.2) on Ubuntu 8.10
> > x86_64 the chicken compiler goes into an infinite recursion. ?CPU
> > usage spikes,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
>
> I have no direct evidence that it was an infinite recursion. It was
> just a guess by the symptoms, but admittedly I have little knowledge
> of Chicken's internals. Sorry for the noise on that. The symptoms
> are that CPU usage increases
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 11:46:03PM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
> >
> > I have no direct evidence that it was an infinite recursion. It was
> > just a guess by the symptoms, but admittedly I have little knowledge
> > of Chicken's internals
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
>
> The bug becomes more and more phantasmagorical!
>
> When initially compiling chicken-boot with "make PLATFORM=linux
> DEBUGBUILD=yes bootstrap" the bug does not appear.
>
> When using -:d OR -:s500k OR -:s1m the bug does not appear.
>
> Whe
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 02:19:56PM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
> >
> > The bug becomes more and more phantasmagorical!
> >
> > When initially compiling chicken-boot with "make PLATFORM=linux
> > DEBUGBUILD=yes bootstrap" the bug does not a
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
>
> Well I was able to trigger a hang in my build with the debugging
> symbols by setting the nursery stack size to 10k. Debug log from GDB
> is attached. The three entries here were taken from allowing the
> program to run for varying perio
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:31:21PM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
> >
> > Well I was able to trigger a hang in my build with the debugging
> > symbols by setting the nursery stack size to 10k. ?Debug log from GDB
> > is attached. ?The three
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
>
> Usually when it hangs, I end up sending it ^C when it's inside mark().
> So if I step out to C_reclaim() I can step through from line 2802 (or
> sometimes 2805; in runtime.c) to line 3016. This I do in GDB using
> the "next" command. Whe
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:09:41PM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> Well done, Taylor. Chicken coalesces all allocations inside a single
> generated C procedure and allocates it as one chunk. It seems here
> that the stack is already too small to hold the data, even after a minor
> GC was invoked.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:36:28PM -0400, Taylor Venable wrote:
> Since regex.c seems heavily involved in this last case, I've also put
> it on my website at: http://real.metasyntax.net:2357/tmp/regex.c.gz
Looking back at the changes log for the devel releases, I just noticed
that the first versio
Hi!
I think you're right: these are two cases: the 10k stack is already too small
on a 64-bit machine and will continuously GC. The other case is the one
we're looking for. It may be that the irregex integration has a bug.
Could you try to build chicken 4? (possibly twice, building the compiler
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:38:30AM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> Could you try to build chicken 4? (possibly twice, building the compiler
> with the compiler built from the bootstrap tarball - so that you are really
> testing the newest version and not some stale code in the bootstrapping
> tarb
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:38:30AM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
>> Could you try to build chicken 4? (possibly twice, building the compiler
>> with the compiler built from the bootstrap tarball - so that you are really
>> testing the newes
I doubt this is the case, since the regex unit is almost identical
between Chicken 3 and Chicken 4. Taylor, can you compile Chicken with
the attached regex.scm and see if there is any routine from the regex
unit that is called at the point when the build process gets stuck?
Thanks,
-Ivan
;;;
Taylor Venable wrote:
When building Chicken 3.4.7 and higher (up to 3.5.2) on Ubuntu 8.10
x86_64 the chicken compiler goes into an infinite recursion.
Excuse my ignorance, how do I check out a version such as 3.4.7 or
3.5.2? I cannot find the relevant tag or branch. Should I look for a
log
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:51:08AM +0100, Tobia Conforto wrote:
> Taylor Venable wrote:
>> When building Chicken 3.4.7 and higher (up to 3.5.2) on Ubuntu 8.10
>> x86_64 the chicken compiler goes into an infinite recursion.
>
> Excuse my ignorance, how do I check out a version such as 3.4.7 or
>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:48:50AM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
> I doubt this is the case, since the regex unit is almost identical
> between Chicken 3 and Chicken 4. Taylor, can you compile Chicken with
> the attached regex.scm and see if there is any routine from the regex
> unit that is called a
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Taylor Venable wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:48:50AM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
>> I doubt this is the case, since the regex unit is almost identical
>> between Chicken 3 and Chicken 4. Taylor, can you compile Chicken with
>> the attached regex.scm and see i
felix winkelmann writes:
> It seems that one of the regexen's compiled in the definitions
> for `absolute-pathname?' or `decompose-pathname' triggers
> a loop in `nfa-join-transitions!' in the "files.scm" unit (these
> are executed at toplevel, outside of the scope of the associated
> lambdas).
On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
felix winkelmann writes:
It seems that one of the regexen's compiled in the definitions
for `absolute-pathname?' or `decompose-pathname' triggers
a loop in `nfa-join-transitions!' in the "files.scm" unit (these
are executed at toplevel, outside
Kon Lovett wrote:
Alex Shinn wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how this can be behaving differently between
Chicken 3 and 4 when the irregex.scm file is identical.
Me too.
I installed Ubuntu 8.10 x86_64 in a VMWare and tried compiling several
Chicken releases, but I couldn't reproduce the bug
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Kon Lovett wrote:
>
> The chicken compiler uses Unit files.
>
Yes, exactly.
>>
>> I'm also puzzled as to how this can be behaving differently
>> between Chicken 3 and 4 when the irregex.scm file is
>> identical.
>
It might be some glue code in regex.scm. It migh
24 matches
Mail list logo
