Re: [Caml-list] Potential OCaml-ZMQ memory management problems

[Yotam Barnoy <yotambarnoy@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2536 bytes --]

You didn't export inputs in Input.mli.

-Yotam

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller <
kennethadammiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> While reproducing it, I found that in the bap/ocaml directory's input.ml,
> there is a mutable list that is being updated by functors in speclist when
> parse_argv or parse is called; it retains the old list between calls to my
> function. So I need to reset it.
> (line 6 at https://github.com/argp/bap/blob/master/ocaml/input.ml)
>
> But now I get a strange compiler error! I don't know how ocaml could be
> such a hard language to use...
>
> Input.inputs:=ref [];
>
> Error: Unbound value Input.inputs
>
> But you can know that I have included the ocaml directory and linked it
> correct, since using Input.get_program already worked...
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller <
> kennethadammiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'll try and recreate it for you.
>>
>> No, the backtrace in gdb is useless. All it says is:
>> #0  0x0000000000843033  in caml_c_call ()
>> #1  0x0000000000000000  in ?? ()
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Anders Fugmann <anders@fugmann.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2014 10:48 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well I am just no thorough and you are correct.
>>>>
>>>> The sending of data over a zmq socket and the conversion of that data
>>>> from string to protobuf encoded string all occurred in one line. One I
>>>> added a print statement and then segregated them more cleanly, I can see
>>>> that it is most certainly the line that converts to protobuf.
>>>>
>>>> The exact function that fails (on my end, could be deeper within this)
>>>> is to_pb from here:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/argp/bap/blob/master/ocaml/piqi/ast_piqi.ml#L186
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I did a test, and in my first function when to_pb gets
>>>> called the first time and succeeds, I added an additional call to it...
>>>> which also succeeded. But then in a subsequent unit test, the one that
>>>> has been failing, still segfaults.
>>>>
>>>> If I turn off the tests prior to the segfaulting test, to_pb works in
>>>> this particular run. But if the tests run before hand, something goes
>>>> awry between the tests. Is it possible that to_pb is using some shared
>>>> state between calls?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would not expect so.
>>>
>>> If you create a failing unittest that I could try?
>>>
>>> Also, does the segfault contain a usable back trace (using gdb)? That
>>> might give some insights into which code is failing.
>>>
>>> /Anders
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4057 bytes --]