Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
Changed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=78125 --- shadow/78125 2006-04-21 18:59:54.000000000 -0400 +++ shadow/78125.tmp.21502 2006-04-23 21:01:37.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,13 +1,13 @@ Bug#: 78125 Product: Mono: Runtime Version: 1.1 OS: unknown OS Details: -Status: RESOLVED -Resolution: FIXED +Status: REOPENED +Resolution: Severity: Unknown Priority: Normal Component: misc AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] @@ -111,6 +111,86 @@ ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-21 18:59 ------- Can't reproduce the crash in mono-1.1.15. Since it was always nondeterministic, the bug may be merely hidden; but the original application now runs successfully using C5.HashDictionary, so I'm closing the bug. + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-23 21:01 ------- +Ok, I think I was prematurely optimistic in closing this bug. + +If I run the test program above (HashCrash.cs) normally (using just +"mono"), with mono-1.1.15, it terminates successfully. If I run it +under "mono --debug --trace", however, it terminates with the +following exception: + +" +Unhandled Exception: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference +not set to an instance of an object +in <0x00046> +C5.KeyValuePairEqualityComparer`2[System.Object,System.Object]:GetHashCode +(KeyValuePair`2 ) +in <0x00063> +C5.HashSet`1[C5.KeyValuePair`2[System.Object,System.Object]]:gethashcode +(KeyValuePair`2 ) +in <0x000d9> +C5.HashSet`1[C5.KeyValuePair`2[System.Object,System.Object]]:searchoradd +(C5.KeyValuePair`2 , Boolean , Boolean , Boolean ) +in <0x0005b> +C5.HashSet`1[C5.KeyValuePair`2[System.Object,System.Object]]:UpdateOrAdd +(KeyValuePair`2 ) +in <0x0008a> C5.DictionaryBase`2[System.Object,System.Object]:set_Item +(System.Object , System.Object ) +in <0x0008a> Foo:.ctor () +in <0x0004e> HashCrash:Main (System.String[] args) +" + +A different test case, virtually identical but using SCG.Dictionary +instead of C5.HashDictionary, shows the same behavior. If that test +case is executed under gdb, it terminates with a segfault: + +" +. . . LEAVE: System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2:.ctor () +. . . ENTER: (wrapper managed-to-native) +System.Object:__icall_wrapper_mono_object_new_ptrfree_box +(intptr)(0x730bc0, ) +. . . LEAVE: (wrapper managed-to-native) +System.Object:__icall_wrapper_mono_object_new_ptrfree_box +(intptr)[INT32:0x2aaaaab4cfc0:0] +. . . ENTER: (wrapper managed-to-native) +System.Object:__icall_wrapper_mono_object_new_ptrfree (intptr)(0x6c25e8, ) +. . . LEAVE: (wrapper managed-to-native) +System.Object:__icall_wrapper_mono_object_new_ptrfree +(intptr)[System.Object:0x2aaaaab2cfc0] +. . . ENTER: System.Object:.ctor ()(this:0x2aaaaab2cfc0[System.Object +MonoCrash.exe], ) +. . . LEAVE: System.Object:.ctor () +. . . ENTER: System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2:set_Item +(object,object)(this:0x2aaaaab4efc0[System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2 +MonoCrash.exe], [INT32:0x2aaaaab4cfc0:0], +[System.Object:0x2aaaaab2cfc0], ) +. . . . ENTER: System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2:GetPrev +(object,int&)(this:0x2aaaaab4efc0[System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2 +MonoCrash.exe], [INT32:0x2aaaaab4cfc0:0], [BYREF:0x7fffffb97b44], ) +. . . . . ENTER: System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2:DoHash +(object)(this:0x2aaaaab4efc0[System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2 +MonoCrash.exe], [INT32:0x2aaaaab4cfc0:0], ) + +Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. +[Switching to Thread 46912509287200 (LWP 28340)] +0x000000004001b728 in ?? () +(gdb) +" + +The test case attached (HashCrash.cs) also generates a SIGSEGV when +run under gdb. + +Furthermore, the larger application that originally uncovered this bug +is once again crashing with a segfault, even when _not_ run under +--trace, which suggests a real runtime issue rather than a bug in +--trace. I haven't yet been able to distill that application into a +small test case that crashes without --trace. + +My guess is that 1.1.15 changed the way in which the bug from 1.1.13.2 +was being exhibited, but that the underlying bug hasn't been fixed. +Bug #77888 looks potentially related. + _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
