[DGD] Error with 1.5.5

[Raymond Jennings]

yeah that's what I meant.  I was wondering if they were omitted/implied in
the snippet you posted to the list.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Negative.  They are needed and I had them just print the error strong to
> the console when they were evoked.
>
> On Jul 17, 2017 19:04, "Raymond Jennings" <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>