Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Search for the smallest possible possible Ocaml segfault....
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Pascal Zimmer <pzimmer@j...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Search for the smallest possible possible Ocaml segfault....
What about this one:

Unix.kill 0 11;;

;-)

Pascal


On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 11:17 -0500, Till Varoquaux wrote:
> It is fixed now:
> 
>  > This class should be virtual. The following variables are undefined : x
> 
> It would have been a good contender for the shorter bug.
> Till
> 
> On Nov 8, 2007 11:11 AM, Jeremy Yallop <jeremy.yallop@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy Yallop wrote:
> > > Till Varoquaux wrote:
> > >> I have a  open bug in ocaml
> > >> (http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4321) that leads very simply
> > >> to a segfault. The bug has been there for more than 4 months and is
> > >> still marked as "new". Since it seems to be stalling I thought I might
> > >> give it a gentle prod: what is the smallest possible ocaml program you
> > >> can come up with that leads to a reproducible segfault without using
> > >> FFI's Obj or Marshal. Here is mine:
> > >>
> > >> Scanf.sscanf  "\"%2$c%1$s\"" "%{%c%s%}" (fun f->Printf.printf f 'x'
> > >> "xy");;
> > >
> > > I've already reported this (on the mailing list) and it's probably been
> > > fixed by now, but in OCaml 3.10.0:
> > >
> > >      !((object val virtual x:'a method x=x end)#x)
> >
> > I made it shorter:
> >
> >         !((object val virtual x:_ method x=x end)#x)
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>