Re: The plot thickens (Re: Segmentation fault cause)

2020-08-28 Thread Stephen R. van den Berg
The fixes in master work, in that there are no segmentation faults anymore, however, now I regularly get this: (gdb) where #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50 #1 0x7f010403c537 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79 #2 0x56469288b3c0 in debug_va_fatal (

Re: The plot thickens (Re: Segmentation fault cause)

2020-07-23 Thread Tobias S. Josefowitz @ Pike developers forum
>>#ifdef PIKE_USE_MACHINE_CODE >> call_check_threads_etc(); >>#endif > >>I assume you have machine code enabled. call_check_threads_etc() > >Normally I do, however, to get to the bottom of this, I temporarily compiled >with: >gcc-9 -g -O1 -pipe -DPIKE_DEBUG=1 > --with-cdebug

Re: The plot thickens (Re: Segmentation fault cause)

2020-07-23 Thread Stephen R. van den Berg
Another core stacktrace (core5): [New LWP 31798] [New LWP 28691] [New LWP 31695] [New LWP 31738] [New LWP 31703] [New LWP 31730] [New LWP 31707] [New LWP 31717] [New LWP 31711] [New LWP 31725] [New LWP 31699] [New LWP 31673] [New LWP 31367] [New LWP 31799] [New LWP 31694] [New LWP 31715] [New LWP

Re: The plot thickens (Re: Segmentation fault cause)

2020-07-23 Thread Stephen R. van den Berg
Tobias S. Josefowitz @ Pike developers forum wrote: >>Am I reading those correctly that both are upon thread creation? >First, nice backtrace. I think it's more that any thread started ever >will have been started by thread creation, and that's what we're >seeing here, not that this necessarily

The plot thickens (Re: Segmentation fault cause)

2020-07-23 Thread Tobias S. Josefowitz @ Pike developers forum
>[New LWP 15651] >[New LWP 15621] >[New LWP 13738] >[New LWP 15642] >[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] >Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1". >Core was generated by `/usr/local/bin/pike /home/spike.git/spike -n >background'. >Program terminated

The plot thickens (Re: Segmentation fault cause)

2020-07-23 Thread Stephen R. van den Berg
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: >Well, this experiment failed. I took out my reverts locally, and now >changed the diagnostic Pike_error() in case of the already-destructed call >into a Pike_fatal(), in hopes of finding out when it is being triggered >from the next coredump. This is what I find: