[GOODIE] address checker (was Re: [SOLVED?] (was Re: [BUG HUNT!]ImageSegment loading troubles revisited))

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Mon Jul 5 13:31:22 UTC 2004


Hi David and all!

"David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> I've attached a little plugin that will hopefully confirm the diagnosis on
> a machine that has this problem (mine does not). From the preamble:

Cool! I will test it when I get VMMaker set up here.
 
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:20:43AM -0700, John M McIntosh wrote:
> > Well if linux 2.6 loaded the image over the 2  GB boundary you would  
> > crash right away when you swizzle the oops at start up time.
> > What you should do is put a break point in the memory allocation logic  
> > that is responsible for growing the image and see when
> > the pointer goes negative as it's being adjusted after a grow/shrink.
> > 
> > You could also check what the start of memory location is, since I  
> > recall the unix VM wants to allocate 1GB, so does start of memory plus
> > 1GB > 2GB?
> 
> Yes, I think this is correct. Start of object memory on my system is
> 16r402E0000, so if I had enough memory to run a 1GB image, I expect that
> horrible things would happen.

Ok, so this is why a "-memory 30m" prevents the issue?

> > On Jul 2, 2004, at 8:13 AM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > > Hmmm, ok - so has this worked until now just because of luck? Has  
> > > memory
> > > normally been mapped below 32 bits, and now with kernel 2.6 (for
> > > example) Linux decides to place Squeak above it sometimes? And is the
> > > problem simply that we can't treat endOfMemory as a signed int?!
> 
> Goran, I don't know if kernel 2.6 is different. I'm still running 2.4
> on my system. I looked at the pngs that you posted, and it does look
> like your system may be different.

Me neither, but I guess the new VM (virtual memory) implementation in
2.6 may have something to do with this.
 
> > > And did
> > > Greece really go to the Euro championship soccer final yesterday? It
> > > seems so.
> 
> Well, it all seems related to the underlying uncertainty of the universe,
> so this might very well have a bearing on the image segment problem ;)

And even more - they bloody WON! :)

> Dave

regards, Göran

PS. We Linux/Squeak users should perhaps try to "unite" a bit. :) What
sources do you use? The ones from Ian or from SF CVS? I am a bit curious
about the current "state of affairs".



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list