Welcome to the main channel on the development of MoarVM, a virtual machine for NQP and Rakudo (moarvm.org). This channel is being logged for historical purposes.
Set by lizmat on 24 May 2021.
00:03 reportable6 left 00:14 dogbert11 joined, dogbert17 left 01:05 reportable6 joined 01:42 evalable6 joined 02:15 frost joined 03:21 Voldenet_ joined 03:22 Voldenet left, Voldenet_ is now known as Voldenet 04:13 kjp left 04:15 kjp joined 04:41 linkable6 joined 05:41 evalable6 left, linkable6 left 05:44 evalable6 joined 06:02 reportable6 left 06:04 reportable6 joined 07:18 unicodable6 left, sourceable6 left, releasable6 left, bloatable6 left, benchable6 left, statisfiable6 left, bisectable6 left, notable6 left, evalable6 left, quotable6 left, reportable6 left, shareable6 left, squashable6 left, greppable6 left, committable6 left, nativecallable6 left, tellable6 left, coverable6 left, squashable6 joined, tellable6 joined 07:19 unicodable6 joined, quotable6 joined, sourceable6 joined, bloatable6 joined, greppable6 joined 07:21 shareable6 joined 07:42 linkable6 joined
MasterDuke i'm not sure why the patch in here is causing the error during rakudo's install gist.github.com/MasterDuke17/82c5a...d4538f4af7 07:43
nine MasterDuke: patch looks ok to me 07:56
Maybe it's unblocking code that contains an op with a buggy JIT implementation? We've had that before 07:57
MasterDuke good. and interestingly, i just re-ran the rakudo build 30s ago (only tried it once last night) and it completed fine
oh wow! but half the test file in `make m-test` had fails 07:58
though amusingly, i get an occasional passing TODO in t/01-sanity/99-test-basic.t 07:59
(which made more sense when i looked and that test file tests Test, so the passing todo isn't real) 08:01
i am on this branch github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1584 though everything was ok before this most recent change. but i guess i'll check that patch against master to see if anything changes 08:04
nine I'd test which part of the patch causes the issues. It does 5 things: move those sanity checks from interp to inside the function, change the one existing JIT to a function call and add 3 more JITed ops. 5 parts you can easily test individually. 08:06
MasterDuke that too 08:07
08:19 benchable6 joined, releasable6 joined 08:20 committable6 joined, notable6 joined 08:21 statisfiable6 joined, reportable6 joined
MasterDuke seems to be ctxouter. if i don't jit it, spectests are fine. put it back in, instafails 08:22
(i.e., the other three ops are fine jitted) 08:23
nine I'd bet on ctxouter unblocking something broken 08:33
MasterDuke this is using the spesh frame walker, there were a bunch of changes around it recently, right? 08:37
nine yes 08:38
MasterDuke does this look ok? 08:57
(rr) p *name
$3 = {common = {header = {sc_forward_u = {forwarder = 0x0, sc = {sc_idx = 0, idx = 0}, st = 0x0}, owner = 1, flags1 = 0 '\000', flags2 = 2 '\002', size = 48}, st = 0x560ce45dbd50}, body = {storage = {blob_32 = 0x560ce4ce1cf0,
blob_ascii = 0x560ce4ce1cf0 "::?CLASS\220^\021\232\n\177", blob_8 = 0x560ce4ce1cf0 "::?CLASS\220^\021\232\n\177", strands = 0x560ce4ce1cf0, any = 0x560ce4ce1cf0}, storage_type = 2, num_strands = 0, num_graphs = 8,
cached_hash_code = 11759813466749862169}}
looks to me like there's some junk on the end of the string 09:03
but it utf8 encode seemingly without problem to "::?CLASS" 09:04
nine That's ok. Those blobs are just not 0 terinated. You only have to look at the first num_graphs characters 09:06
09:20 evalable6 joined
jnthnwrthngtn moarning o/ 10:00
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn o/ 10:04
jnthnwrthngtn Hope y'all have been having fun while I was away. At least, I see commits :) 10:07
lizmat yeah, some commits and some issues as well 10:12
github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/4601 cost me some time to figure out 10:13
:-(
nine Well, Sunday was definitely fun :) niner.name/pictures/PANO_20211031_124518.jpg Yesterday was a bit unproductive as body was rather unambiguously demanding rest 10:18
lizmat wow
10:19 coverable6 joined
lizmat definitely above the tree line :-) 10:19
10:19 bisectable6 joined
jnthnwrthngtn That's pretty :) 10:22
Just taken care of the last comment on github.com/rakudo/rakudo/pull/4591 10:25
nine We first went up the Hagler 1669m and then continued to the Hoher Nock at 1963m. Our route: bit.ly/2ZI8yUW
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn: I guess this will need correction then: docs.raku.org/language/variables#P..._variables 10:26
There are three special variables that are available in every block:
jnthnwrthngtn Yes, that's a bit confusing. Only $_ is fresh per block (and then it's *bound* to what is in the outer scope, so you'd need to make a binding, not assignment) 10:29
lizmat yeah, working on fixing the doc
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat++
lizmat m: sub a() { dd MY::.keys }; a # what about $¢ ? 10:30
camelia ("\$¢", "\$_", "\$/", "\$!").Seq
lizmat implementation detail ? 10:31
nine It appears in spec tests 10:33
lizmat ah, interesting
but only twice 10:34
jnthnwrthngtn Only declared inside of rules/regexes 10:35
MasterDuke so the exception i'm getting is thrown by MVM_frame_lexical_primspec, because MVM_get_lexical_by_name returns MVM_INDEX_HASH_NOT_FOUND. which is correct, the name it's looking for isn't there. but i don't know why 10:41
dogbert11 there are two (?) dispatchy bugs lurking about as well. They only show up under the toughest conditions, i.e. MVM_SPESH_NODELAY=1, MVM_SPESH_BLOCKING=1 and a very small nursery. 10:42
Geth MoarVM/new-special-return: 17 commits pushed by (Jonathan Worthington)++
review: github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/compare/b...760b58598e
lizmat even though $¢ is tested for in roast, it feels like an implementation detail 10:43
dogbert11 Messages are 'Can only use manipulate a capture known in this dispatch' and 'Already set resume init args for this dispatcher' respectively
The second one has a large chance of being GC related, gist.github.com/dogbert17/9c648c7e...c6e046b573 10:45
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: I assure you if it was an implementation detail I woulda picked a different name ;-)
I'm quite sure it appears in S05
Yup, 12 mentions in raw.githubusercontent.com/perl6/sp...-regex.pod 10:46
How useful it is, is another question :)
Especially after the Cursor/Match unification 10:47
nine dogbert11: FWIW I've yet again failed to reproduce. This time the range.t issue 10:48
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn: ok, I will *not* document it :-) 10:49
dogbert11 nine: how is that possible :) what nursery size are you using?
also, are you on master or your nativecall branch? 10:51
Geth MoarVM/faster-frame-alloc: fcddd1210d | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/core/frame.c
Split specialized and unspecialized frame alloc

This allows for us to eliminate more checks than the compiler can, and also seems - at least on some compilers - to make it possible to inline into MVM_frame_dispatch. One further opportunity is that we can fold two calls to memset into one in the common on-callstack allocation case of specialized frames.
10:58
MoarVM/faster-frame-alloc: 9903a543dc | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/core/frame.c
Elide frame initialization check with spesh cand

If we are at the point that we are making a call where we have already identified a specialization of a frame, then clearly that frame has been invoked before. Thus move the frame initialization check into the path of the non-specialized invocation.
nine dogbert11: on master with 4K nursery while MVM_SPESH_NODELAY=1 MVM_SPESH_BLOCKING=1 ./rakudo-m -Ilib t/spec/S02-types/range.t ; do :; done 11:01
dogbert11: also tried MVM_GC_DEBUG 3
dogbert11 I failed to mention that I actually run that test with a 20k nursery and MVM_GC_DEBUG=1 11:11
dogbert11 hides
11:19 evalable6 left, linkable6 left 11:20 nativecallable6 joined
Geth MoarVM: jnthn++ created pull request #1589:
Some small optimizations for frame allocation
11:20
11:22 evalable6 joined
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn : github.com/Raku/doc/commit/c867f164ba 11:22
jnthnwrthngtn grmbl, seems I'll have to go searching for why github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1581 causes `make test` failures on CI
(Which I've yet to see locally)
MasterDuke two of them are using clang, do you every try that locally? 11:23
jnthnwrthngtn I thought this machine was builidng with clang but now I see it's GCC :) 11:25
lizmat: I wonder whether "in each routine" would be better than "in each sub / method" (in that it's more complete; for example, it's true of submethod but also regex/token/rule routines too) 11:26
lizmat ok... I was wondering about that, but yeah
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: An alternative solution to "declare your own $/" would also be "declare a sub instead" 11:27
lizmat map: sub () {
you mean?
jnthnwrthngtn Yes
Well, it'd have to be map: sub ($_) {
lizmat ah, yes 11:28
jnthnwrthngtn Dunno to what degree this is better, but it's maybe a nice alternative
Otherwise it looks good to me 11:29
lizmat I feel the "my $/;" is more self-documenting
it's easy to lose track of why a `sub` was used there, and then a subsequent refactorer might think:
why a sub? that's not needed!
and bang, your program suddenly becomes unreliable 11:30
jnthnwrthngtn True
lizmat so I feel like not documenting that option :-)
jnthnwrthngtn MasterDuke: Sadly, building with clang did not magically surface the error 11:34
Hmm 11:35
Type check failed for return value; expected CompUnit:D but got Method (method sink (Mu: *%_...) 11:36
at /home/vsts/work/1/rakudo/t/02-rakudo/04-diag.t:3
The test varies, but the error seems to reliably be that one 11:37
oh, interesting...actually one of the 3 is a SEGV in t/04-nativecall/08-callbacks.t 11:43
Which I can't reproduce either :( 11:46
nine: Did you ever manage to reproduce the issues seen in CI locally for github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1581 ? 11:47
The PR actually does two things: replace the special return mechanism, and then do some follow-up optimizations. I guess I'll try a version of the PR that only has the first half of it. 11:48
Geth MoarVM/new-special-return-only: 07be913d17 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/core/callstack.h
Add temporary define for migrating Rakudo extops
11:52
MoarVM/new-special-return-only: 03ff8e7a28 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/gc/finalize.c
Avoid a NULL dereference when running finalizers
MoarVM: jnthn++ created pull request #1590:
Migrate special return to callstack
11:53
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn: fwiw, your latest rakudo merge seems to negatively affect test-t (1 or 2% or so) 12:00
12:02 reportable6 left
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: Curious, I'd have really have expected much of an effect there. 12:10
For the things it helps, the win is a lot greater than 1 or 2%.
lizmat there's that :-) 12:12
just giving data points, not arguing :-)
jnthnwrthngtn For example, with Agrammon we saw a 9% slowdown after new-disp. With this, it became a few percent improvement over pre-new-disp 12:13
lizmat works for me :-)
jnthnwrthngtn Still, I wonder what the mechanism is that causes a change in test-t. 12:14
Does the effect appear in test-t-20?
(That is, has this change made warm-up a bit worse?) 12:15
dogbert11 nine: before you give up, can you try this golf on normal settings, i.e. no flags set and no changes to the GC flags? gist.github.com/dogbert17/af79a02e...cb4d9c6711 12:16
jnthnwrthngtn Sigh, turns out that github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1590 is even more faily
lunch & 12:17
12:22 linkable6 joined
lizmat hmmm... maybe it's just a matter of slightly increased startup time ? 12:30
nine jnthnwrthngtn: no, my reproduction success rate has been abysmal in the past week 13:02
13:03 reportable6 joined
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: Maybe, that's why I asked about test-t-20 (which would be less sensitive to that) 13:21
timo jnthnwrthngtn: i think the last faster-frame-alloc commit prevents frames that have already run from hitting the instrumentation barrier after profiling has been turned on, like when you profile a program that evals, for example, a bunch of frames in the compiler would already be specialized 13:28
lizmat I see an improvement there for sure: 14.3 seconds -> 13.8 seconds
for test-t-20
jnthnwrthngtn timo: It's not that the frames have been specialized, but rather that they are called via specialization linking 13:30
timo ah, so really only from another specialized frame already 13:35
so there'd always be an outer that's invoked normally and can hit the barrier
well, not "outer"
nine caller? 13:36
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn: fwiw, I don't see much of a difference with test-t --race 13:37
perhaps that just doesn't run long enough
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: Perhaps so
13:42 MasterDuke left
lizmat afk for a bit& 13:47
14:09 MasterDuke joined 14:40 vrurg left 14:42 vrurg joined 15:00 frost left
dogbert11 nine: are you on a train getting home from $work? 16:06
16:12 evalable6 left, linkable6 left, evalable6 joined
timo he took a midnight train --> Any $ where ... 16:12
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn: comparing logs.liz.nl/raku-dev/2021-10-29.html#17:35 with logs.liz.nl/raku-dev/2021-11-02.html#14:43 shows test-ts are slower :-( 16:13
dogbert11 timo: can I trick you to run gist.github.com/dogbert17/af79a02e...cb4d9c6711 in order to see if you can repro the error we discussed yesterday?
or anyone else for that matter :) 16:17
MasterDuke `Already set resume init args for this dispatcher` 16:18
dogbert11 MasterDuke++, this means I'm not insane and the problem is real 16:19
perhaps jnthnwrthngtn can figure out what's wrong just by looking at the gist 16:22
timo i also get the error message locally 16:39
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: Hm, didn't you post a number earlier showing a faster test-t-20? 16:51
lizmat that was on my local machine
nine dogbert11: I've just come home from work 16:53
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: OK, let's see tomorrow's numbers to make sure it's not just that the machine they were posted from was otherwise busy 16:54
lizmat yup 16:55
jnthnwrthngtn dogbert11: I can reproduce it. It goes away with MVM_SPESH_DISABLE=1.
dogbert11: But doesn't crash but instead changes behavior (loads of warnings) with MVM_SPESH_BLOCKING=1
nine dogbert11: FWIW I can finally reproduce it as well with your golf 16:57
jnthnwrthngtn: could it be because finalizers are now run at an inopportune time? 16:58
jnthnwrthngtn nine: That ain't merged yet :) 17:00
Actually I was on the branch that changed that and went back to MoarVM master to check it
nine It also occurs with finalizers disabled
jnthnwrthngtn Turns out the warnings are there too
It's just that when it crashes it does so before it has time to spit out a load of them, it seems
oh, it's not stable; it behaves differently run to run 17:02
dogbert11 suddenly everyone can repro, cool :) 17:04
jnthnwrthngtn Gah, disabling hash randomization doesn't get it completely stable
It spesh bissects to Spesh of '' (cuid: 3, file: x.raku:14) 17:08
timo any deopts happen right before explosion? 17:10
jnthnwrthngtn uh, this makes no sense, how on earth do we end up in nextwith?
at gen/moar/BOOTSTRAP/v6c.nqp:6545 (/home/jnthn/dev/rakudo/blib/Perl6/BOOTSTRAP/v6c.moarvm:)
from SETTING::src/core.c/control.pm6:142 (/home/jnthn/dev/rakudo/blib/CORE.c.setting.moarvm:nextwith)
from x.raku:14 (<ephemeral file>:)
There is no nextwith in this whole file
nine neither in Test.pm6 17:11
jnthnwrthngtn Nor...right
nine err... .rakumod
lizmat
.oO( if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and it still isn't a duck, the name is wrong )
17:11 nine left 17:13 linkable6 joined 17:14 nine joined 17:15 nine left, nine joined
jnthnwrthngtn Anybody repro this? 17:16
$ ./rakudo-m -e 'for ^10000 { <0+0i> ~~ 1..10 }'
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
lizmat yup 17:17
segfaults for me
MasterDuke yep, in setup_translated_resumption
jnthnwrthngtn OK, that's a better golf them
*then
lizmat need about 2200 iterations to get a reliable segfault 17:18
MasterDuke (gdb) p *ri
$2 = {dp = 0x0, deopt_idx = 0, res_idx = 0, state_register = 0, init_registers = 0xa5}
jnthnwrthngtn Still there with JIT disabled, which makes the gdb stacktrace a little easier 17:19
dogbert11 jnthnwrthngtn: I get a SEGV
disappears with MVM_SPESH_INLINE_DISABLE=1 17:20
lizmat confirmed 17:22
jnthnwrthngtn Yup, that also correlates with where we are in find_internal
dogbert11 is starting to believe that this bug is in BIG trouble :) 17:23
jnthnwrthngtn oh duh 17:24
This looks silly
Have a probable fix, testing 17:27
Geth MoarVM: 9380981185 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/disp/resume.c
Fix thinko in inline dispatch resumption search

We are doing a forward search through the resumptions (because they were emitted in reverse - most nested dispatcher first - already at dispatch program compilation time). Thus the index should be incremented to reach the end, not decremented. Could lead to out-of-bounds reads or just an attempt to resume the wrong dispatcher depending on how it came up.
17:33
jnthnwrthngtn I really don't understand why CI is such a mess on github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1590 but I can't produce any of these issues locally 17:38
lizmat jnthnwrthngtn: feels like it's time for a bump 17:40
MasterDuke aw. ^^^ fix doesn't also fix my lexical not found on my jit branch 17:42
jnthnwrthngtn Does anybody confirm it fixes the problem on their machine?
MasterDuke does for me (the complex example)
jnthnwrthngtn OK, good
dogbert11 jnthnwrthngtn++ 17:45
jnthnwrthngtn lizmat: Given it seems the fix is confirmed to help, can do 17:46
lizmat ok, will do
jnthnwrthngtn If anybody would be able to try and reproduce the Rakudo make test failures with 1590 it'd be appreciated. I can't at all.
dogbert11 fix works splendidly 17:47
jnthnwrthngtn (Build the MoarVM branch new-special-return-only; you'll need to rebuild Rakudo also due to extops changes)
dogbert11 will do 17:48
MasterDuke t/02-rakudo/08-slangs.t ......................................... Dubious, test returned 255 (wstat 65280, 0xff00)\ 17:56
but i had to have a spectest running at the same time 17:57
jnthnwrthngtn MasterDuke: OK, at least somebody can repro something
With spesh blocking + a small nursery I managed to get one spectest to fail
aha, and the small nursery is significant 17:58
18:02 reportable6 left
jnthnwrthngtn OK, this failure is seemingly to do with finalization 18:31
I'm not really sure what makes the timing of it unfortunate enough to cause bother
dogbert11 perhaps a good dinner might clarify things? 18:39
jnthnwrthngtn Yeah, cooking a dal at the moment 19:11
MasterDuke now this is interesting. on my branch where i'm jitting ctx(caller|outer)(skipthunks) and i get tons of those `Frame has no lexical with name ...` because of ctxcallerskipthunks, a test and spectest both pass if i disable the expr jit. even though none of those four ops have templates! 19:18
so yeah, it seems like the jitting of ctxcallerskipthunks is uncovering some other problem 19:19
dogbert11 interesting, the new-special-return-only branch has tests failing with the other dispatchy error, the one nine unfortunately didn't manage to repro 19:28
using an 8k nursery, t/spec/S06-advanced/wrap.rakudo.moar and t/spec/S12-methods/defer-next.t fail with 'Can only use manipulate a capture known in this dispatch' 19:29
MasterDuke ah, the jitting of ctx(caller|outer)(skipthunks) causes problems even if i just cherry-pick that commit onto master. new error now though, `No such method 'exception' for invocant of type 'X::AdHoc'` 19:32
lizmat hmmmm... for the first time in a long time, I got a hang in t/spec/S17-promise/nonblocking-await.t 19:40
(this is on master everything)
20:03 reportable6 joined 20:12 sena_kun left 20:16 sena_kun joined
Geth MoarVM/new-special-return: 5dd58a5db3 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/gc/finalize.c
Don't lose exception handler results

Invoking finalizers could end up replacing tc->last_handler_result, leading to missing or incorrect values being observed for that after finalizers had run. Don't run finalizers when there is such a risk.
21:06
jnthnwrthngtn Here's hoping that might fix the CI failures I couldn't reproduce. 21:10
dogbert11 how does that branch differ from new-special-return-only 21:16
nine new-special-return-only is only a part of the branch with the purpose of narrowing down the changes that cause the failure 21:23
jnthnwrthngtn: looking at that commit I wonder if that problem could have appeared before as well? Or manifested in a different way (like not calling the finalizer when there's a last_handler_result) 21:24
dogbert11 nine: new-special-return-only contains errors but perhaps jnthnwrthngtn fixed those in the other branch 21:26
jnthnwrthngtn nine: I did wonder the same; I don't know why the previous approach wouldn't have been vulnerable to the same issue 21:27
Sigh. The PR still fails. With things I can't reproduce. 21:28
Not sure what to do about that.
Geth MoarVM/new-special-return-only: 733dbd3293 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/gc/finalize.c
Don't lose exception handler results

Invoking finalizers could end up replacing tc->last_handler_result, leading to missing or incorrect values being observed for that after finalizers had run. Don't run finalizers when there is such a risk.
21:30
jnthnwrthngtn Let's see how things look in this one also
Geth MoarVM/new-special-return: c77a89fae6 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/core/callstack.c
Don't run finalizers at all

To see if that is to blame for the `make test` failures
21:32
jnthnwrthngtn On the upside, github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1589 has passed CI 21:33
dogbert11 the 'Can only use manipulate a capture known in this dispatch' problem is still present after applyiong your latest commit 21:39
jnthnwrthngtn dogbert11: That exists on master too, yes? 21:40
dogbert11 yes, but it has been very difficult to repro there the last few days 21:41
running './rakudo-gdb-m -Ilib t/spec/S06-advanced/wrap.rakudo.moar' with MVM_GC_DEBUG=3 leads to a SEGV 21:42
jnthnwrthngtn Which branch?
dogbert11 new-special-return-only 21:43
jnthnwrthngtn And with default settings, or a small nursery?
Well, other than the one you mentioned
dogbert11 the only changes are MVM_GC_DEBUG=3 and building with --no-optimize
#0 log_parameter (tc=0x55555555ae30, cid=192924, arg_idx=0, param=0x55555563f5e8) at src/spesh/log.c:95 21:44
#1 0x00007ffff79449cd in MVM_spesh_log_entry (tc=0x55555555ae30, cid=192924, sf=0x5555579948b0, args=...) at src/spesh/log.c:130
#2 0x00007ffff7829b5a in MVM_frame_dispatch (tc=0x55555555ae30, code=0x5555579edfb8, args=..., spesh_cand=-1) at src/core/frame.c:552
#3 0x00007ffff790df5f in run_resume (tc=0x55555555ae30, record=0x7ffff722da38, disp=0x555557a89890, capture=0x55555563f5e8, thunked=0x7fffffffc048) at src/disp/program.c:618
#4 0x00007ffff7917158 in MVM_disp_program_record_end (tc=0x55555555ae30, record=0x7ffff722da38, thunked=0x7fffffffc048) at src/disp/program.c:2793
running with that flag set to 3 is slooow 21:46
jnthnwrthngtn uh, yes, I'm still waiting to see if I can repro it 21:47
21:47 linkable6 left, evalable6 left
dogbert11 would be nice, it's an elusive beast 21:47
to be fair, I had the nursery set to 20k but I'm under the impression that this value is ignored when MVM_GC_DEBUG=3 21:49
could I be wrong about that perhaps
jnthnwrthngtn No, I think it collects every allocation 21:51
dogbert11 yeah, but perhaps it tries to move nurseries around every allocation ? 21:52
four megs is more than 20k but perhaps I'm spouting nonsense here 21:53
jnthnwrthngtn OK, github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1581 fails even without running any finalizers
dogbert11 and using a 20k nursery make the program run faster than a four meg nursery when MVM_GC_DEBUG=3, at least on my system 21:55
jnthnwrthngtn # expected a match with: /'(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)' .* 'test is good'/
# got: "(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)\nUnhandled lexical type 'num32' in lexprimspec\n\n"
dogbert11 oh, you got something
jnthnwrthngtn On CI
dogbert11 ah
jnthnwrthngtn OK, here goes with adding one commit at a time to the PR to see where it breaks... 21:57
dogbert11 well the SEGV show up cinsistently on my system 21:58
jnthnwrthngtn That one is still running yet
ah
yes, just got the segv 21:59
dogbert11 yessssssss :)
jnthnwrthngtn (gdb) p *param
$2 = {header = {sc_forward_u = {forwarder = 0xefefefefefefefef, sc = {sc_idx = 4025479151,
idx = 4025479151}, st = 0xefefefefefefefef}, owner = 4025479151, flags1 = 239 '\357',
flags2 = 239 '\357', size = 61423}, st = 0xefefefefefefefef}
Well, that's not looking good. 22:00
dogbert11 0xefefefefefefefef looks suspicious
src/gc/orchestrate.c-#if MVM_GC_DEBUG >= 3 22:01
src/gc/orchestrate.c: memset(other->nursery_fromspace, 0xef, other->nursery_fromspace_size);
src/gc/orchestrate.c-#endif
MasterDuke also in src/core/threadcontext.c 22:02
dogbert11 but this probably explains why running with a 20k nursery is faster
jnthnwrthngtn Indeed, it is rather faster that way 22:21
dogbert11: You could reproduce this on master also, yes?
Uhh. github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1590 has presently only one commit that adds what should be only dead code. And...fails CI too 22:25
oh, it's a git checkout failure...that ain't my code :) 22:26
Let's re-run that one.
lizmat
.oO( it's alive, but not as we know it! )
MasterDuke just a git error
Geth MoarVM: 4d145b4651 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/disp/program.c
Add missing GC mark of resume capture
22:27
jnthnwrthngtn dogbert11: ^^ fixes it
(Committed in master 'cus it's wrong there too...) 22:28
dogbert11 yay 22:30
jnthnwrthngtn No matter how many times I click re-run on that git failed test, it doesn't re-run... 22:34
MasterDuke i think it doesn't actually restart it until the others are finished 22:35
22:35 sena_kun left
jnthnwrthngtn ah, ok 22:36
22:38 sena_kun joined
dogbert11 jnthnwrthngtn: the problem on master was reported as github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/issues/1580 22:39
perhaps it can be closed
jnthnwrthngtn Hm, that's a different (although very possibly related) failure mode to the one I just fixed 22:40
dogbert11 yeah, the stacktrace doesn't look quite the same but it did look the same if I ran the SEGV example with an 8k nursery and MVM_GC_DEBUG=1 22:42
I guess it could be two different bugs, let me investigate, I'll apply your latest master commit to new-special-return-only and give it a go 22:43
jnthnwrthngtn MasterDuke: Yes, seems I can queue a re-run for the git failure now it did the others; thanks for the tip
MasterDuke np. took me quite a while to realize that so figured i'd share the wealth 22:44
22:50 linkable6 joined, evalable6 joined 22:54 sena_kun left
dogbert11 the 'Can only use manipulate a capture known in this dispatch' was either fixed by the latest commit or it has gone into hiding, can't repro any longer 22:56
Geth MoarVM/new-special-return-only: 5dfbc68774 | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/core/loadbytecode.c
Migrate loadbytecode usage of special return
22:57
jnthnwrthngtn hmm...pushing that doesn't seem to have triggered the azure checks... 22:59
Geth MoarVM/new-special-return-only: 9b499f94fe | (Jonathan Worthington)++ | src/core/loadbytecode.c
Migrate loadbytecode usage of special return
23:00
MasterDuke it looks like github might be having problems
jnthnwrthngtn Oh
I wondered if it was somehow trying to optimize it out because it saw that hash sometime before now... 23:01
(What I just pushed is just ammending it with a new date so it's another sha-1)
Which has immediately triggered the CI
I'm tired, will continue trying to CI-bissect this tomorrow, or if my office machine will repro it maybe. 23:06
23:36 sena_kun joined 23:53 sena_kun left 23:57 squashable6 left 23:58 squashable6 joined