GNU bug report logs - #33014
26.1.50; 27.0.50; Fatal error after re-evaluating a thread's function

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 33014 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 33014 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#33014: 26.1.50; 27.0.50;
 Fatal error after re-evaluating a thread's function
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 10:17:10 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Did you try loading it as a .el file?

Yes, but I couldn't reproduce the bug.

>> The Lisp backtrace is really short:
>> 
>> Thread 7 (Thread 0x7f1cd4dec700 (LWP 21837)):
>> "erb--benchmark-monitor-func" (0x158ec58)
>
> If you succeed in reproducing this when this code is loaded
> uncompiled, the backtrace might be more helpful.

The assertion happens in the Bswitch case of exec_byte_code when it's
running erb--benchmark-monitor-func, and there's only one 'switch' in
the disassembled bytecode, see line 16:

[bytecode.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

>> (gdb) p jmp_table
>> $1 = make_number(514)
>> (gdb) p *top
>> $3 = XIL(0x42b4d0)
>> (gdb) pp *top
>> remove
>
> Which one of these is the one that triggers the assertion violation?

jmp_table.  The assertion violation is at line 1403 in bytecode.c:

            struct Lisp_Hash_Table *h = XHASH_TABLE (jmp_table);

>> Thread 1 "monitor" hit Hardware watchpoint 7: *(EMACS_INT *) 0x16eac38
>> 
>> Old value = 60897760
>> New value = 24075314
>> setup_on_free_list (v=v <at> entry=0x16eac30 <bss_sbrk_buffer+9926032>, 
>>     nbytes=nbytes <at> entry=272) at alloc.c:3060
>> 3060	  total_free_vector_slots += nbytes / word_size;
>> (gdb) bt 10
>> #0  setup_on_free_list (v=v <at> entry=0x16eac30 <bss_sbrk_buffer+9926032>, 
>>     nbytes=nbytes <at> entry=272) at alloc.c:3060
>> #1  0x00000000005a9a24 in sweep_vectors () at alloc.c:3297
>> #2  0x00000000005adb2e in gc_sweep () at alloc.c:6872
>> #3  garbage_collect_1 (end=<optimized out>) at alloc.c:5860
>> #4  Fgarbage_collect () at alloc.c:5989
>> #5  0x00000000005ca478 in maybe_gc () at lisp.h:4804
>> #6  Ffuncall (nargs=4, args=args <at> entry=0x7fff210a3bc8) at eval.c:2838
>> #7  0x0000000000611e00 in exec_byte_code (bytestr=..., vector=..., maxdepth=..., 
>>     args_template=..., nargs=nargs <at> entry=2, args=<optimized out>, 
>>     args <at> entry=0x9bd128 <pure+781288>) at bytecode.c:632
>> #8  0x00000000005cdd32 in funcall_lambda (fun=XIL(0x7fff210a3bc8), 
>>     nargs=nargs <at> entry=2, arg_vector=0x9bd128 <pure+781288>, 
>>     arg_vector <at> entry=0x7fff210a3f00) at eval.c:3057
>> #9  0x00000000005ca54b in Ffuncall (nargs=3, args=args <at> entry=0x7fff210a3ef8)
>>     at eval.c:2870
>> (More stack frames follow...)
>
> Can you show the Lisp backtrace for the above?

(gdb) xbacktrace
"Automatic GC" (0x0)
"string-match" (0x210a3bd0)
"completion-pcm--string->pattern" (0x210a3f00)
"completion-pcm--find-all-completions" (0x210a43a0)
"completion-pcm-try-completion" (0x210a4668)
0x1723c30 PVEC_COMPILED
"completion--some" (0x210a4b60)
"completion--nth-completion" (0x210a4e68)
"completion-try-completion" (0x210a50f0)
"execute-extended-command--shorter" (0x210a5390)
"execute-extended-command" (0x210a5760)
"funcall-interactively" (0x210a5758)
"call-interactively" (0x210a5a90)
"command-execute" (0x210a5d48)

>> Am I correct that the next step is to figure out why the garbage
>> collector is not marking this vector?  Presumably it's no longer
>> attached to the function definition for erb--benchmark-monitor-func by
>> the time the garbage collector runs, but it's supposed to be found by
>> mark_stack when called from mark_one_thread for Thread 7, right?
>
> Is this vector the byte-code of erb--benchmark-monitor-func?  If so,
> how come it is no longer attached to the function, as long as the
> function does exist?

This vector is the constants vector for the byte-code of
erb--benchmark-monitor-func.

When eval-region evaluates the defun for erb--benchmark-monitor-func, it
replaces the symbol's function definition, so it removes that reference
to the byte-code.  AFAIK the only other reference to the byte-code
is on the stack of Thread 7, which is running the byte-code.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.