Closed
Bug 416478
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
With JS_THREADSAFE, running dekker.js, assertion failure at jsobj.c:3195
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: jorendorff, Assigned: brendan)
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
(deleted),
text/plain
|
Details | |
(deleted),
patch
|
shaver
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Assertion failure: (0 < (((JSScope *)(obj)->map))->u.count && (((JSScope *)(obj)->map))->u.count <= 4) || SCOPE_IS_SEALED(((JSScope *)(obj)->map)), at jsobj.c:3195
It fails, in this case, because scope->u.count == 5 and the scope is not sealed. The attachment is a gdb log showing this.
To reproduce:
1. Apply the two patches in bug 404879 (attachment 301599 [details] [diff] [review] and attachment 302224 [details] [diff] [review], as of this writing) and the one in bug 402898. :-P
2. Build with XCFLAGS=JS_DEBUG_SCOPE_LOCKS
3. See the attachment for the command line to run the test.
(BTW, in the attachment, in response to "print SCOPE_IS_SEALED((JSScope *)obj->map)", gdb can expand that macro because I hacked config.mk to compile with -g3 instead of -g.)
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
Many thanks to Jason for finding (he pointed out the stale comment removed here too, want to get that in ASAP).
/be
Comment on attachment 302250 [details] [diff] [review]
fix, plus comment and warning tweak
r=shaver.
Attachment #302250 -
Flags: review?(shaver) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Fixed:
js/src/jsinterp.c 3.419
Anything else in a new bug, but I hope this is it.
/be
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
My tests pass.
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: in-testsuite-
Flags: in-litmus-
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
This should be in-testsuite, given that Jason's shell-based test failed for want of the fix. Right?
/be
Flags: in-testsuite- → in-testsuite?
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
I figured the test would be added as part of bug 404879 and I could mark this as - to get it off my radar.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
Oh, ok -- sorry, didn't mean to meddle -- figured we could have an exact regression test for this bug that referenced its number, though.
/be
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•