[DGD] Error with 1.5.5

[Blain]

I'm on my phone, so I just wrote that theoretical code by hand.  I didn't
mean to leave out the delay arg to call_out.  :)

On Jul 17, 2017 18:46, "Blain" <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The bug is coming from the existence of an undeclared variable.
>
> On Jul 17, 2017 17:34, "Raymond Jennings" <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, if your version successfully called "compile_error", but
>> dworkin's aborted due to it being missing, could you double check and make
>> sure the version of driver.c that you posted is a complete copy of your
>> version?
>>
>> Dworkin is correct that a call to a non-existant function in the driver
>> object is rightly supposed to be a fatal error.
>>
>> (see http://shentino.github.io/phantasmal/DGD/Running/DGDCrash.html, dgd
>> list message dated Fri Oct 24 08:07:01 2003)
>>
>> However, I did notice that your asserted behavior diverges from dworkin's
>> observations.
>>
>> Also, a compile error in the driver's source should prevent the driver
>> from
>> being called at all, and IIRC, the attempt to call "compile_error" would
>> itself have triggered a driver object compile (iirc, attempts to call a
>> driver function automatically compile the driver), which in turn would
>> trigger a runtime error of "compilation within compilation" which
>> phantasmal's docs cited as a symptom of an improperly installed/configured
>> kernel library (which contains the driver object).
>>
>> Dworkin is correct that call_out as a kfun requires a minimum of two
>> arguments, the name of the function to be called out and the delay for the
>> call.  Failing to conform to this is a syntax error (and would have led to
>> the aforementioned compile_error call leading to a reentrant compile).
>>
>> I'm a little surprised that your description differs from dworkin, and in
>> theory, unless you've erred in your copypaste, the driver source itself
>> should have failed to compile after choking on a call_out based syntax
>> error, and the compilation of foo.c would in theory not have happened in
>> the first place.
>>
>> I hope I'm not overthinking this lol.
>>
>> But at this point I suspect a botched copypaste to the ml for your source
>> code.  Could you double check?
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > If you *were* able to reproduce a true segfault (and not just an
>> abort), a
>> > stack trace would be helpful.
>> >
>> > Do make sure it's not due to an infinite recursion though.
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Felix A. Croes <felix at dworkin.nl>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I triggered a segfault after compile_error and before runtime_error
>> are
>> >> > called in the driver object.  I created a bare bones implementation
>> and
>> >> > determined that the following does bug out.
>> >> >
>> >> > [/driver.c]
>> >> > void initialize() {
>> >> >   call_out("load_foo");
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > void load_foo() {
>> >> >   compile_object("/foo");
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > [/foo.c]
>> >> > void foo() {
>> >> >   test = ({});
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, /auto.c and /auto.h are empty files.
>> >> >
>> >> > With the variable test not being declared in foo.c, DGD segfaults.
>> The
>> >> > error message given to compile_error is "undeclared variable test".
>> >>
>> >> The errormessage I get is "/driver.c, 2: too few arguments for function
>> >> call_out".
>> >>
>> >> After fixing that, a fatal error: "missing function in driver object:
>> >> compile_error", which does crash DGD, not with a segmentation fault
>> >> but with an abort call.  That is proper and expected behaviour.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Felix Croes
>> >> ____________________________________________
>> >> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ____________________________________________
>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>
>