octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: segfault on 'make check'


From: Tatsuro MATSUOKA
Subject: Re: segfault on 'make check'
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:17:59 +0900 (JST)

Hello

Using the recent development source, segfault after make check was disappeared 
for MinGW build.

changeset 14008:a73e110857e4 
date    Wed Dec 07 15:29:26 2011 -0500

Regards

Tatsuro
--- On Thu, 2011/12/8, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On  7-Dec-2011, Ben Abbott wrote:
> 
> | My tip is ...
> | 
> | $ hg tip
> | changeset:   14006:54f76558c41a
> | tag:         tip
> | user:        John W. Eaton <address@hidden>
> | date:        Wed Dec 07 06:55:12 2011 -0500
> | summary:     avoid gh_manager segfault
> | 
> | "make check" completes, but the seg-faults when octave tries to exit.
> | 
> | I ran the tests from gdb
> | 
> | Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
> | Reason: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at address: 0x000000010de180f2
> | 0x000000010de180f2 in ?? ()
> | (gdb) bt
> | #0  0x000000010de180f2 in ?? ()
> | Cannot access memory at address 0x10de180f2
> | #1  0x000000010de18461 in ?? ()
> | #2  0x00000001004de7a0 in octave_value_typeinfo::~octave_value_typeinfo ()
> | #3  0x00000001004de8dd in octave_value_typeinfo::cleanup_instance ()
> | #4  0x00000001028c6d93 in singleton_cleanup_list::~singleton_cleanup_list ()
> | #5  0x0000000100391442 in clean_up_and_exit ()
> | #6  0x0000000100324c79 in octave_main ()
> | #7  0x0000000100000f44 in start ()
> | 
> | If I apply the ov-typeinfo.cc patch (below) ....
> | 
> | diff -r 1221086f1ba5 src/ov-typeinfo.cc
> | --- a/src/ov-typeinfo.cc    Mon Dec 05 16:08:13 2011 -0500
> | +++ b/src/ov-typeinfo.cc    Mon Dec 05 14:24:48 2011 -0800
> | @@ -46,8 +46,10 @@
> |      {
> |        instance = new octave_value_typeinfo ();
>
> | +#if 0
> |        if (instance)
> |          singleton_cleanup_list::add (cleanup_instance);
> | +#endif
> |      }
>
> |    if (! instance)
> | 
> | Then "make check" runs and exists cleanly.
> 
> I'm not seeing this crash, but I checked in this change as a temporary
> fix for those of you who are.
> 
> I don't know that I'll be able to debug this problem unless I can
> find a way to reproduce it myself.
> 
> jwe
>


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]