#1270 Unexpected recursion leading to error 11, "Control stack full"

[Rony G. Flatscher]

With ooRexx 4.2.0 the following Rexx program causes an unexpected recursion that leads to error 11: Control stack full:

  rexxCode1="::routine pp public; return '['arg(1)']'"
  rp1=.routine~new("rexxcode1", rexxcode1)
  rp1~call

  rexxCode2= "parse source fn                                               ;" -
             "say pp(fn)                                                    ;" -
             "say pp(fn) 'test():' pp(test())  -- a line comment            ;" -
             "::routine test public                                         ;" -
             "  return 'from routine test() at' .DateTime~new               ;" ;

  -- rp2=.routine~new("rexxcode2", rexxcode2, rp1~package)
  rp2=.routine~new("rexxcode2", rexxcode2)
  rp2~package~addPackage(rp1~package)
  rp2~call

Please note: rexxCode2 has no .endofline, but uses semi-colons for ending statements. Right before the routine directive a line comment is given, which causes everything else to be treated like a comment.

It is therefore unexpected that this program enters into a recursion until the control stack is full.

[Rick McGuire]

This program does not give a control stack full for me, but a routine not found, which is what I would expect:

[WindowsNT SUBROUTINE rexxcode2]
1 - say pp(fn) 'test():' pp(test()) -- a line comment ; ::rou
tine test public ; return 'from routin
e test() at' .DateTime~new ;
- Compiled method CALL with scope "Routine"
14 - rp2~call
Error 43 running rexxcode2 line 1: Routine not found
Error 43.1: Could not find routine "TEST"

[Rony G. Flatscher]

Yes. Running the program via Java and the ooRexx C++ interface yields error 43.1.

Running the Rexx program I submitted on my machine gives 11.1:

---

15 *-* rp2~call
 1 *-* say pp(fn) 'test():' pp(test())  -- a line comment            ; ::routine test public
        ;   return 'from routine test() at' .DateTime~new               ;
   *-* Compiled method CALL with scope "Routine"
15 *-* rp2~call
 1 *-* say pp(fn) 'test():' pp(test())  -- a line comment            ; ::routine test public
        ;   return 'from routine test() at' .DateTime~new               ;
   *-* Compiled method CALL with scope "Routine"
15 *-* rp2~call
 1 *-* say pp(fn) 'test():' pp(test())  -- a line comment            ; ::routine test public
        ;   return 'from routine test() at' .DateTime~new               ;
   *-* Compiled method CALL with scope "Routine"
15 *-* rp2~call
 1 *-* say pp(fn) 'test():' pp(test())  -- a line comment            ; ::routine test public
        ;   return 'from routine test() at' .DateTime~new               ;
   *-* Compiled method CALL with scope "Routine"
15 *-* rp2~call
 1 *-* say pp(fn) 'test():' pp(test())  -- a line comment            ; ::routine test public
        ;   return 'from routine test() at' .DateTime~new               ;
   *-* Compiled method CALL with scope "Routine"
15 *-* rp2~call

Error 11 running F:\work\svn\bsf4oorexx\trunk\samples\Java\test\test.rex line 3: Control stack full
Error 11.1: Insufficient control stack space; cannot continue execution

F:\work\svn\bsf4oorexx\trunk\samples\Java\test>rexx -v
Open Object Rexx Version 4.2.0
Build date: Feb 22 2014
Addressing Mode: 32

Copyright (c) IBM Corporation 1995, 2004.
Copyright (c) RexxLA 2005-2013.
All Rights Reserved.
This program and the accompanying materials are made available under
the terms of the Common Public License v1.0 which accompanies this
distribution or at
http://www.oorexx.org/license.html

---

Even opened a new command line session and still have that control stack full error!

[Rick McGuire]

I will examine this once an example that actually shows the error is available. But from what I can see, you've somehow added a package to itself, creating a circular reference.

[Rick McGuire]

Found the undelete function!

This is invalid. It gives a control stack full if you name the program "test.rex". The test() call locates the original file as an external call and invokes it recursively. This would have been a little more obvious had you given the program as an attachment with the original name rather than just cut-and-pasting it into the description...as well as saving the person doing the investigation a little time.