GNU bug report logs -
#23404
Infinite recursion in GOOPS in Guile 2.2
Previous Next
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 23404 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 23404 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
:
bug#23404
; Package
guile
.
(Sat, 30 Apr 2016 00:29:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
.
(Sat, 30 Apr 2016 00:29:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Heya all,
So I've been building something with GOOPS, and I decided to try it out
with Guile 2.2. Unfortunately, I hit a pretty nasty bug. You can try
it yourself... the code is pretty short:
(use-modules (oop goops)
(srfi srfi-9))
(define-class <some-class> ())
(define-method (time-to-break (some-class <some-class>) not-a-class)
(display "We're never going home are we?\n"))
;; And now, call it
(time-to-break (make <some-class>) 1)
This will loop forever and *never* complete. Why?
Turns out this is why, from goops.scm:
(define (single-arity-cache-dispatch cache nargs cache-miss)
(match cache
(() cache-miss)
(((typev . cmethod) . cache)
(cond
((eqv? nargs (vector-length typev))
(let ((cache-miss (single-arity-cache-dispatch cache nargs cache-miss)))
I'm not sure what was supposed to happen (presumably the cache was
supposed to be narrowed down somehow), but what happens here is that
single-arity-cache-dispatch keeps calling single-arity-cache-dispatch
forever.
scheme@(guile-user) [1]> ,bt
In oop/goops.scm:
1437:41939 (cache-miss #<<hive> e8a1e0> #<<message> id: "5c787e65bbeb34b27ffd16eead286fc6:1" to: ("8394701db8…>)
1486:41938 (memoize-effective-method! _ _ _)
1466:131937 (recompute-generic-function-dispatch-procedure! #<<generic> hive-process-message (1)>)
1452:161936 (compute-generic-function-dispatch-procedure _)
1378:251935 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251934 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251933 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251932 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251931 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251930 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251929 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251928 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251927 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251926 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251925 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
1378:251924 (single-arity-cache-dispatch _ 2 _)
... etc ...
(g?)Oops!
- Chris
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
:
bug#23404
; Package
guile
.
(Sat, 30 Apr 2016 02:27:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 23404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
It looks like my example was incomplete. It turns out loading and
passing in an srfi-9 record is critical to instantiating the bug.
Why? I'm not sure...
(use-modules (oop goops)
(srfi srfi-9))
(define-class <some-class> ())
(define-record-type <some-record>
(make-some-record foo)
some-record?
(foo some-record-foo))
(define-method (time-to-break (some-class <some-class>) not-a-class)
(display "We're never going home are we?\n"))
;; Now it'll break
(time-to-break (make <some-class>) (make-some-record 1))
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org
:
bug#23404
; Package
guile
.
(Sat, 30 Apr 2016 02:28:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 23404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
It looks like my example was incomplete. It turns out loading and
passing in an srfi-9 record is critical to instantiating the bug.
Why? I'm not sure...
(use-modules (oop goops)
(srfi srfi-9))
(define-class <some-class> ())
(define-record-type <some-record>
(make-some-record foo)
some-record?
(foo some-record-foo))
(define-method (time-to-break (some-class <some-class>) not-a-class)
(display "We're never going home are we?\n"))
;; Now it'll break
(time-to-break (make <some-class>) (make-some-record 1))
Reply sent
to
Andy Wingo <wingo <at> pobox.com>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:13:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:13:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #16 received at 23404-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Sat 30 Apr 2016 04:27, Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org> writes:
> It looks like my example was incomplete. It turns out loading and
> passing in an srfi-9 record is critical to instantiating the bug.
>
> Why? I'm not sure...
>
> (use-modules (oop goops)
> (srfi srfi-9))
> (define-class <some-class> ())
> (define-record-type <some-record>
> (make-some-record foo)
> some-record?
> (foo some-record-foo))
>
> (define-method (time-to-break (some-class <some-class>) not-a-class)
> (display "We're never going home are we?\n"))
>
> ;; Now it'll break
> (time-to-break (make <some-class>) (make-some-record 1))
This appears to be fixed, somehow (?). Please reopen if you can still
produce the bug.
Andy
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:24:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 8 years and 84 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.