| IRC logs at
Set by AlexDaniel on 12 June 2018.
01:21 sena_kun left 01:36 sena_kun joined
moon-child odd, enabling asan has no effect 01:36
timotimo does the whole rakudo test suite (not necessarily the spec tests) pass? 02:39
moon-child yes 03:10
03:20 sena_kun left 03:35 sena_kun joined 04:35 statisfiable6 left, committable6 left, notable6 left, shareable6 left, benchable6 left, coverable6 left, evalable6 left, squashable6 left, linkable6 left, bloatable6 left, unicodable6 left, releasable6 left, notable6 joined, quotable6 joined, bisectable6 joined, releasable6 joined, evalable6 joined 04:36 squashable6 joined, tellable6 joined, benchable6 joined, greppable6 joined 04:37 nativecallable6 joined, coverable6 joined, statisfiable6 joined, reportable6 joined, shareable6 joined, committable6 joined, linkable6 joined 04:38 unicodable6 joined, sourceable6 joined, bloatable6 joined
moon-child now I'm confused 04:47
I got it running with debugsyms, and the last bit of code in moar before it's libc error detection is nativecall_dyncall.c:362
which is break;
ah-hmmm. I recompiled just that file without optimizations, to see if that would change the location of the error. With that change, there's no stack smashing error 04:50
here we go, ubsan to the rescue! 04:53
runtime error: member access within misaligned address ... for type MVMObject/MVMCollectable/MVMCode/MVMCodeBody/MVMStaticFrame */MVMSTable * 04:54
lines 86, 91, and 207 of nativecall_dyncall.c 04:55
05:18 moritz joined 05:21 sena_kun left 05:36 sena_kun joined 05:53 harrow joined 07:21 squashable6 left, sena_kun left 07:22 squashable6 joined 07:37 sena_kun joined
nine moon-child: that error may indicate that your native function returns NULL instead of a function pointer 08:37
moon-child: apparently we don't have any NULL checks there 08:38
09:10 zakharyas joined 09:21 sena_kun left 09:23 hankache joined 09:35 hankache left, sena_kun joined 11:21 sena_kun left 11:36 sena_kun joined 12:48 zakharyas left 12:51 lucasb joined 13:21 sena_kun left 13:36 sena_kun joined 14:16 squashable6 left, squashable6 joined 14:17 zakharyas joined 15:20 sena_kun left 15:36 sena_kun joined 17:20 sena_kun left 17:36 sena_kun joined 18:06 MasterDuke left 18:16 squashable6 left 18:19 squashable6 joined 19:00 MasterDuke joined 19:21 sena_kun left 19:37 sena_kun joined 19:41 zakharyas left
moon-child nine: I don't think so. Execution enters the function properly and I can do stuff inside of it. It's just the return that causes those errors. And ubsan mentions addresses of actual pointers, and it all works fine without optimizations 20:34
21:03 zakharyas joined 21:20 sena_kun left 21:35 sena_kun joined 21:36 hankache joined 21:57 zakharyas left 22:01 hankache_ joined 22:04 hankache left 22:10 lucasb left 22:12 hankache_ left 22:48 jjatria left, jjatria joined 23:18 dogbert17 left 23:21 sena_kun left 23:27 dogbert17 joined 23:36 sena_kun joined 23:40 Kaiepi joined 23:41 Kaiepi left 23:42 Kaiepi joined 23:52 AlexDani` joined 23:53 AlexDaniel left