Jump to page: 1 2
Thread overview
ldc 1.12.0 garbage collector bails out with SEGENV
Oct 30
kinke
Oct 31
kinke
Nov 01
Kagamin
Nov 01
Kagamin
Nov 02
Kagamin
October 30
Facing a new segfault with ldc 1.12.0 on Linux. Does not happen with ldc 1.7.0. I'll also try 1.11.0.

https://github.com/biod/BioD/issues/44

Anyone an idea?
October 30
On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 at 16:27:01 UTC, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> Anyone an idea?

Not really, but the std.parallelism unittests are spuriously failing on Linux for LDC CI as well.
October 30
On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 at 16:27:01 UTC, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> Facing a new segfault with ldc 1.12.0 on Linux. Does not happen with ldc 1.7.0. I'll also try 1.11.0.
>
> https://github.com/biod/BioD/issues/44
>
> Anyone an idea?

From a quick glance at your code, std.parallelism, and the backtrace, smells like unordered destruction by GC, i.e. it already destroyed a Task before destroying one of your `Cache`s.
October 31
On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 at 19:27:41 UTC, kinke wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 at 16:27:01 UTC, Pjotr Prins wrote:
>> Anyone an idea?
>
> Not really, but the std.parallelism unittests are spuriously failing on Linux for LDC CI as well.

ldc 1.10 is also working fine. It is a regression of sorts. The problem is reproducible with my setup.
October 31
I suspect the D compiler itself because we also have a problem in DMD. Is there a bugzilla report on this already?
October 31
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 11:29:56 UTC, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> I suspect the D compiler itself because we also have a problem in DMD. Is there a bugzilla report on this already?

I very much doubt that. It's much more likely that it's a druntime regression, if your code really isn't to blame.
October 31
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 11:29:56 UTC, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> I suspect the D compiler itself because we also have a problem in DMD. Is there a bugzilla report on this already?

Just confirmed that ldc 1.11.0 is also fine.
October 31
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 11:33:14 UTC, kinke wrote:
> I very much doubt that. It's much more likely that it's a druntime regression, if your code really isn't to blame.

Not sure our code is to blame. The code is pretty straightforward and works fine for years up to v1.12.0. It happens at cleanup time after running unit tests (which pass).


November 01
On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 at 16:27:01 UTC, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> Facing a new segfault with ldc 1.12.0 on Linux. Does not happen with ldc 1.7.0. I'll also try 1.11.0.
>
> https://github.com/biod/BioD/issues/44
>
> Anyone an idea?

Looks like the whole task is corrupted, but its destructor is buggy anyway: tries to use GC-allocated pool. Does it crash deterministically?
November 01
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 10:52:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> Looks like the whole task is corrupted, but its destructor is buggy anyway: tries to use GC-allocated pool. Does it crash deterministically?

Oh, no, the destructor is supposed to work for a task on stack, but since this task is corrupted, it runs in GC finalization.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2