It looks like the backtrace gets cut off before reaching the actually
relevant part. I'm not sure off the top of my head how to control the
length of backtraces being printed - is there anything like that in
the error handling of stumpwm?
Vladimir
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Stephen Balousek <s.balou...@cox.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am getting a strange, intermittent crash of StumpWM and I am looking for
> pointers on how to resolve it, or possible workarounds.
>
> The relevant information from ~/.xsession-errors is:
>
> Caught 'The value -28580123 is not of type UNSIGNED-BYTE.' at the top level.
> Please report this.
> 0: (SB-DEBUG::MAP-BACKTRACE
> #<CLOSURE (LAMBDA # :IN SB-DEBUG:BACKTRACE) {100555C56B}>
> :START
> 0
> :COUNT
> 100)
> 1: (SB-DEBUG:BACKTRACE 100 #<SB-IMPL::STRING-OUTPUT-STREAM {100555C463}>)
> 2: (BACKTRACE-STRING)
> 3: (PERFORM-TOP-LEVEL-ERROR-ACTION
> #<TYPE-ERROR expected-type: UNSIGNED-BYTE datum: -28580123>)
> 4: (SIGNAL #<TYPE-ERROR expected-type: UNSIGNED-BYTE datum: -28580123>)
> 5: (ERROR TYPE-ERROR :DATUM -28580123 :EXPECTED-TYPE UNSIGNED-BYTE)
> 6: (SB-KERNEL::OBJECT-NOT-TYPE-ERROR-HANDLER
> #<unavailable argument>
> #.(SB-SYS:INT-SAP #X7FFFF704E9F8)
> #<SB-ALIEN-INTERNALS:ALIEN-VALUE :SAP #X7FFFF704E3C0 :TYPE (*
>
> (SB-ALIEN:STRUCT
>
> SB-VM::OS-CONTEXT-T-STRUCT))>
> (84 21))
> 7: (SB-KERNEL:INTERNAL-ERROR
> #.(SB-SYS:INT-SAP #X7FFFF704E3C0)
> #<unavailable argument>)
> 8: ("foreign function: #x4180DF")
>
> debugger invoked on a TYPE-ERROR in thread
> #<THREAD "initial thread" RUNNING {1003BA8E23}>:
> The value -28580118 is not of type UNSIGNED-BYTE.
>
> Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL.
>
> (no restarts: If you didn't do this on purpose, please report it as a bug.)
>
> (SB-KERNEL::OBJECT-NOT-TYPE-ERROR-HANDLER
> #<unavailable argument>
> #.(SB-SYS:INT-SAP #X7FFFF704EEB0)
> #<SB-ALIEN-INTERNALS:ALIEN-VALUE :SAP #X7FFFF704E880 :TYPE (*
> (STRUCT
>
> SB-VM::OS-CONTEXT-T-STRUCT))>
> (84 21))
> 0]
>
>
> Can anyone tell if this is a StumpWM issue or an SBCL issue? I am thinking
> it is an issue with the FFI layer in SBCL, but any other interpretations
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
> Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Stumpwm-devel mailing list
Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
