On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
Hi Phil,
Well, I don't know what MessageTally bug there was, but I found post 3397 VMs unstable, as in random crashes happened using them.
Can I have a test case please?
Levente
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Phil (list) wrote:
Levente,
On Fri, 2015-12-25 at 20:55 +0100, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
If you need a stable VM, then you should use 3397.
I don't believe 3397 fixed the MessageTally bug reported by Juan a while back (which is what I was hoping to correct with 3427). I tried 3397 and 3410 previously and iirc, each was less reliable than 3390 for me on Linux.
Thanks, Phil
Levente
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, KenD wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 04:15:23 -0500 From: "Phil (list) via Cuis-dev" cuis-dev@cuis-smalltalk.org To: Discussion of Cuis Smalltalk cuis-dev@cuis-smalltalk.org Cc: "Phil (list)" pbpublist@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Cuis-dev] More robust package loading?
Just a quick update on my current issue for anyone else on Linux at least: I forgot that I recently upgraded my vm from 15.25.3390 to 15.33.3427. The problem appears to be the vm: 3390 loads
everything
as expected but has problems with MessageTally, 3427 works with MessageTally but has problems loading things... grrr...
Still think more robust package loading could be useful...
On Fri, 2015-12-25 at 03:41 -0500, Phil (list) wrote:
Happy holidays all! Here's my gift to the list... ;-)
It's been a couple of weeks since I attempted to rebuild
completely
from a totally clean base image (2595) and of course it failed
utterly and completely. After some trial and error, I finally narrowed it down to a problem installing the stock FFI.pck.st. I am running a
rather
fluid version of Linux (Debian testing) and it's entirely likely
that
a
recent system update is causing the problem but I'm having a difficult time getting more specific than that because when I attempt to
load
FFI, all I get is this wonderful segfault:
C stack backtrace & registers: eax 0xff887b24 ebx 0xff887a40 ecx 0xff887ad8 edx
0xff887a8c
edi 0xff887910 esi 0xff887910 ebp 0xff8879a8 esp0xff8879f4
eip 0xff887c08*[0xff887c08] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak[0x805e8c0] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak[0x805ebac] linux-gate.so.1(__kernel_rt_sigreturn+0x0)[0xf77a4b50] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak[0x80769bd] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak(incrementalGC+0x237)[0x807c217] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak[0x807cb66] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak[0x807cf7f] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak[0x807d0bd] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak(ceStackOverflow+0x6d)[0x807f44d] [0xb35832e6] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak(interpret+0x7b6)[0x8087ef6] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak(main+0x2af)[0x805f30f] /lib/i386-linux- gnu/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xde)[0xf753c70e] ../lib/squeak/4.5-3427/squeak[0x8131564]
Smalltalk stack dump: 0xff894cd0 M Array(SequenceableCollection)>at:ifAbsent:
0xb4c9705c:
a(n) Array
0xff894cf0 M Array(Scanner)>typeTableAt: 0xb4ca8ee0: a(n) Array 0xff894d0c M Array(Scanner)>scanToken 0xb4ca8ee0: a(n) Array 0xff894d28 M Array(Parser)>advance 0xb4ca8ee0: a(n) Array 0xff894d40 M Array(Parser)>init:notifying:failBlock: 0xb4ca8ee0:
a(n)
Array
0xff894d68 M Array(Parser)>privateReadSelectorFrom: 0xb4ca8ee0:
a(n)
Array
0xff894d84 M Parser class>selectorFrom: 0xb3753bd0: a(n) Parser
class
0xff894da4 M INVALID RECEIVER>addMethodChange: 0xb4ca5d04: a(n)
bad
class
0xff894dc0 M INVALID RECEIVER>methodChange: 0xb4ca5d04: a(n) bad class 0xff894ddc M CodePackageFile(CodeFile)>method: 0xb4c8f2ec: a(n) CodePackageFile Segmentation fault Fri Dec 25 03:05:08 2015
(and so on...)
Granted my main issue is largely the (lack of) information in the
VM
output on the crash (i.e. I have no idea what class/method/line
the
is
the cause of the problem) but since this is unlikely to change in
the
near term, some sort of verbose package loading mode would be most
helpful (i.e. 'loading method foo... completed loading method foo' type messages to transcript when a package is being installed) While
this
is just about a worst case package loading problem for me, I have
had
other issues in the past loading packages (almost always with the
code being imported, not the package loader itself) and am thinking a
more
robust package loading process (at least when running in some sort
of
debug mode) would be most welcome... does this sound useful to
anyone
else?
Thanks, Phil
Cuis-dev mailing list Cuis-dev@cuis-smalltalk.org http://cuis-smalltalk.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis-dev_cuis-smalltalk.
org
-- -KenD