[DGD] Error with 1.5.5

[Raymond Jennings]

Would I be correct to assume that omitting compile_error and runtime_error
etc from driver.c was also part of the "theoretical code" abbrevation?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>