[SPAM:##] [perl #126014] Too many repetitions with xx operator causes out of memory; should it work lazily?

[Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT]

Tests in
https://github.com/perl6/roast/commit/b320464868d3b8da98c090ddc4b0d57604683e13

Closing

On 2018-03-10 11:25:06, jan-olof.hen...@bredband.net wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:59:05 -0800, elizabeth wrote:
> > > On 22 Feb 2017, at 12:41, jn...@jnthn.net via RT  > > follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 03:42:00 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> OK, I said that it only segfaults on 32-bit systems, but I was
> > >> wrong.
> > >>
> > >> Code:
> > >> 42 xx (2 ** 62)
> > >>
> > >> Result:
> > >> Segmentation fault
> > >>
> > > This is patched in MoarVM HEAD just now and no longer SEGVs
> > > (reports
> > > the array is too long to allocate). So, no longer a SEGV bug.
> > >
> > > However, I'm a bit surprised that xx does not work lazily, and
> > > actually makes such a huge array up-front. Not sure if we want to
> > > re-
> > > purpose the ticket for that; I'll remove the SEGV from the title,
> > > however, since that is resolved.
> >
> > Ah, yes, I remember we discussed this. I’ll make it a Seq, although
> > the question then becomes: should it be lazy or not? If it is not
> > lazy, we would just be postponing the exception in some cases.
> >
> >
> > Liz
>
> Fixed with commit
>
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/1eb7b1f796214870b53c7ed055907cb29076dc78

[perl #126014] Too many repetitions with xx operator causes out of memory; should it work lazily?

[Jan-Olof Hendig via RT]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:59:05 -0800, elizabeth wrote:
> > On 22 Feb 2017, at 12:41, jn...@jnthn.net via RT  > follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 03:42:00 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> OK, I said that it only segfaults on 32-bit systems, but I was
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >> Code:
> >> 42 xx (2 ** 62)
> >>
> >> Result:
> >> Segmentation fault
> >>
> > This is patched in MoarVM HEAD just now and no longer SEGVs (reports
> > the array is too long to allocate). So, no longer a SEGV bug.
> >
> > However, I'm a bit surprised that xx does not work lazily, and
> > actually makes such a huge array up-front. Not sure if we want to re-
> > purpose the ticket for that; I'll remove the SEGV from the title,
> > however, since that is resolved.
> 
> Ah, yes, I remember we discussed this.  I’ll make it a Seq, although
> the question then becomes: should it be lazy or not?  If it is not
> lazy, we would just be postponing the exception in some cases.
> 
> 
> Liz

Fixed with commit 
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/1eb7b1f796214870b53c7ed055907cb29076dc78