Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 07:50:25PM -0800, James E Keenan via RT wrote:
> I reviewed this older ticket tonight. Trimming the last post:
>
> #####
> On Fri Mar 05 04:19:24 2004, keni@aol.net wrote:
> ...
> > I agree - my code was in error. But I don't like being able to core
> > an interpreter (and not get any indication of why).
> >
>
> So it appears the OP concedes he was attempting something he should not
> have. When I run the attached program -- which throws 'use strict' and
> 'use warnings' around the OP's code -- I get:
>
> #####
> $ perl 27393.pl
> Useless use of hash element in void context at 27393.pl line 10.
> X: 1
> X: HASH(0x1804180)
> Use of reference "HASH(0x1804180)" as array index at 27393.pl line 10.
> Use of uninitialized value $_ in concatenation (.) or string at 27393.pl
> line 9.
> X:
> Use of uninitialized value $_ in array element at 27393.pl line 10.
> Can't use string ("1") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use at
> 27393.pl line 10.
> #####
>
> So I am amply warned of my bad behavior. I recommend we close this ticket.
I disagree. The OP pointed out that the code segfaulted. Bad perl code
shouldn't segfault. There appear to be a couple of possible issues;
The first is modifying (extending) the array be looped over; this has
traditionally been regarded as a Bad Thing to do, although I think we
handle this now.
The second issue is that doing $array[$ref] numfies the address of $ref
and so indexes a huge array element. I think the OP's code was segfaulting
when doing address calculations that overflowed a 32-bit address.
IIRC, we've since hardened the array indexing code to be more robust against
this sort of thing.
So, I think we've *probably* fixed this. but it would be nice if someone
could bisect this.
It might be as simple as, doing on a 32-bit system), $a[1073840232]
(based on the OP's stack trace).
--
You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next