From: Patrick S. <sbc...@nk...> - 2008-06-02 02:36:55
|
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Nikodemus Siivola <nik...@ra...> wrote: > This is very wierd. Even with segfaults in unknown addresses you > should be getting debugger (or at least LDB) prompts and reports from > the shell about stopped processes. If SBCL dies from a segfault like > this it seems to me that the handlers have not been set up yet, which > means nothing very much is happening yet. Yes, I was hoping to figure out what was going on in gdb(1), but I definitely wasn't getting the core read in right there. Or, at least the initial function it chose was on a page that wasn't executable. When I get a chance, I'll try sticking some stuff into main to figure out exactly where. I suppose if it set up the interrupt handlers to jump into the sbcl.core somewhere and then managed to catch a signal before the mmap was ready... I dunno.... I, too, suspect mmap(2), but there's a segment of code where it tries to determine if you're masked from getting an interrupt while handling an interrupt. That seems like a potential place to go afoul in the kernel, too. more later, Patrick ps. Sorry about the vacuous reply earlier, Nikodemus. I have not yet mastered iPhone+Gmail+MailingLists. |