-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
require() resolution cache #25
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2d02be5
add REQUIRE_CACHE_{READ_WRITE} env vars
tmm1 25e98f7
cache lookup failures too
tmm1 bbbca3c
clear out REQUIRE_CACHE_WRITE for any subprocesses
tmm1 c9721f4
change debug msg
tmm1 1089cf1
use st_lookup instead of st_delete, and emulate search_required behavior
tmm1 8afbab4
short circuit require("enumerator")
tmm1 faa994c
ignore READ variable in WRITE mode
tmm1 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These fprintfs happen back to back, so I can't figure out why one writes sane data (to stderr) and the other ends up corrupting the cache file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tmm1:
RSTRING_PTR
is not assured to be NULL-terminated. TryStringValueCStr()
instead?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought that might be why, so I tried
fprintf("%.*s", RSTRING_LEN(ipath), RSTRING_PTR(ipath))
but that didn't help either.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just tried
StringValueCStr
and no difference. It's super weird that the corruption always happens after loading thread.bundle, so I wonder if that's affecting the open file handle somehow.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Might be related to this, which calls back into load.c:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hah. Sounds like a fun one. I'm definitely digging this tomorrow if you haven't figured it out by then. :))