GNU bug report logs -
#79483
Segmentation fault: set-car! in compiled code
Previous Next
Full log
Message #14 received at 79483 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 09:27:54PM +0200, Tomas Volf wrote:
> <tomas <at> tuxteam.de> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 12:50:57AM +0300, var-vniiaes--- via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Execution of (set-car! '(0) 1) *in compiled code* leads to segfault:
> >
> > First of all: you shouldn't be doing that :)
> >
> > You are mutating a constant. I don't know what the Scheme specification says
> > to it (if at all).
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> As noted in section 3.4, it is an error to attempt to alter
> a constant (i.e. the value of a literal expression) using a
> mutation procedure like set-car! or string-set!
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> > The other question is whether Guile should/could catch that and signal an
> > error instead.
>
> I believe it should not.
This is ambiguous, but from the context below I think you mean Guile
should catch it. I agree :-)
> Memory-safe languages (and, Guile is supposed
> to be one) should never segfault but instead terminate with a sensible
> error. I realize that 1.3.2 allows to "fail catastrophically", which
> segfault probably qualifies as, but I believe we should do better.
Definitely -- the question is whether Guile wants to rely on the
OS/runtime to catch an out-of-bounds access (or more probably here
an access to a region marked read-onls) or catch it itself.
Cheers
--
tomás
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified today.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.