Re: segmentation fault with {1..1234567}

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:08:06 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 7,  8:33pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } Subject: Re: segmentation fault with {1..1234567}
> }
> } On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:46:29 -0700
> } Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> } > The question is ... do we redefine
> } > VARARR() [possibly conditionally] to change all the usages at once ...?
> 
> Well, that one is easy, as I mentioned earlier; see patch below.  One added
> hunk in mem.c for a place where we didn't check the return of malloc, but I
> did not attempt to change the usual fatal-error behavior.

I'm trying this out, but I'm not sure I'm likely to prod the most likely
problem areas with my usage.  I guess that would be things that can
allocate large chunks repeatedly before there's a popheap() or a
freeheap().  We've previously fixed this up for syntactic loops,
i.e. while, for, repeat, but there may be relevant internal loops.

Most if not all of the allocations are individually amenable to turning
into malloc and free if it turns out to be the easiest option following
experimentation.

pws