bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

Hi, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > On current ‘core-updates’, the code in (guix build graft) triggers > random Guile crashes (GC issue? thread-safety issue?) when running on > Guile 2.2.2, as initially reported by Marius at >

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

Mark H Weaver writes: > From these facts, I believe we can conclude that the error is happening > within the body of 'begin-thread' in 'n-par-for-each', but outside of > the body of 'proc' passed to 'n-par-for-each'. It could also be happening within the 'call-with-backtrace', used here: http

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

Hi, I've been studying the backtrace provided by Ludovic, trying to determine where, in the Scheme code, this error happened in thread 1. l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f6fe6f5d700 (LWP 2856)): > #0 0x7f7019db0d79 in scm_is_pair (x= Cannot access memory at addre

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

On Thu 10 May 2018 08:50, Mark H Weaver writes: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> On Wed 09 May 2018 02:32, Mark H Weaver writes: >> >>> However, I think it's _far_ more likely that the NULL argument on the >>> stack was copied from memory shared by multiple threads without proper >>> thread synchroniz

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

Hi Andy, Andy Wingo writes: > On Wed 09 May 2018 02:32, Mark H Weaver writes: > >> However, I think it's _far_ more likely that the NULL argument on the >> stack was copied from memory shared by multiple threads without proper >> thread synchronization. > > I think this is unlikely on x86 given

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

On Wed 09 May 2018 02:32, Mark H Weaver writes: > However, I think it's _far_ more likely that the NULL argument on the > stack was copied from memory shared by multiple threads without proper > thread synchronization. I think this is unlikely on x86 given its total-store-ordering memory model.

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > [...] >> Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f6fe6f5d700 (LWP 2856)): >> #0 0x7f7019db0d79 in scm_is_pair (x=> Cannot access memory at address 0x0>0x0) at ../libguile/pairs.h:159 >> #1 scm_ilength (sx=) at list.c:190 > [...] >> Wha

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

Hi Ludovic, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] > Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f6fe6f5d700 (LWP 2856)): > #0 0x7f7019db0d79 in scm_is_pair (x= Cannot access memory at address 0x0>0x0) at ../libguile/pairs.h:159 > #1 scm_ilength (sx=) at list.c:190 [...] > What this means is that Thread 1 get

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

Hello Andy & Mark, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > >> On current ‘core-updates’, the code in (guix build graft) triggers >> random Guile crashes (GC issue? thread-safety issue?) when running on >> Guile 2.2.2, as initially reported by Marius at

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > On current ‘core-updates’, the code in (guix build graft) triggers > random Guile crashes (GC issue? thread-safety issue?) when running on > Guile 2.2.2, as initially reported by Marius at >

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > On current ‘core-updates’, the code in (guix build graft) triggers > random Guile crashes (GC issue? thread-safety issue?) when running on > Guile 2.2.2, as initially reported by Marius at >

bug#28211: Grafting code triggers GC/thread-safety issue on Guile 2.2.2

On current ‘core-updates’, the code in (guix build graft) triggers random Guile crashes (GC issue? thread-safety issue?) when running on Guile 2.2.2, as initially reported by Marius at : --8<---cut here---