I’ve applied your binary patch and resurrected the original storable file so I know my privacy string edits all the ‘xxx.. I feel silly following up tachyon ‘s great analysis with something so mundane, but With the patch applied the end of the error trace now looks like: Did I mention I did not like the author’s macro mania much yet ;- As soon as you have a test case and the croak will get you one provided you test and save it it should be relatively easy to track down the issue s Storable is a module I use all the time, as do many others. If don’t have a 5.
|Date Added:||2 September 2016|
|File Size:||61.63 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
From my basic knowledge I’m wondering if we could just ASSERT if you attempt to grow the hash key read pool if its not a positive integer. D8995 are 8 bytes that appear wrong. I have identified the errors in the file.
It crashes again another K or so into the file but the data it is extracting all looks valid. I was too lazy to look at the syntax of yet another macro.
How many stories does it take before you’ve pefl them all? The hexedit should look like: The number is not negative either it is a large unsigned int. It will be interesting to find out.
Check out past polls.
Well I don’t have the full answer but I can fill in the picture. I feel silly following up tachyon ‘s great analysis dd895 something so mundane, but There must be an extra byte or two in the original that is triggering the behaviour but where It is probably better to do: More on croaking in a second.
It may be possible to debug it without this test case but it would be a lot easier if you have at least one problem data structure to validate the patch against.
Did I mention I did not like the author’s macro mania much yet ;- As soon as you have a test case and the croak will get you one provided you test and save it it should be relatively easy to track down the issue s Storable is a module I use all the time, as do many others.
 in Perl-Users-Digest
Replies are listed ‘Best First’. Forgot to mention that. I’ve attached the ‘out-of-memory. The main debugging problem is that the precise original data has been lost.
Anyway the integer is 0 x F5 06 6E 6F Looking at the datafile with a hex editor we see: What I forgot to mention is that prrl restored data structure after the 8 bytes of edit stores and retrieves just fine. Back to Seekers of Perl Wisdom. Hi Matt, You up you are quite possibly right about the cause. We can all do without it randomly crashing.
Unicode/UTFcharacter table – starting from code position D
The problem is that it will probably be a very specific data set that casues what I expect is a buffer issue. Even more so when you note that following. This RLEN macro reads an integer from the Storable file that specifies the size of the next data chunk to be read.
This value could be anything from billion. As noted it looks like a buffer and offset issue. With the patch applied the end of the error trace now looks like: You are an Example and Inspiration to Us All!
ؕ | arabic small high tah (U+) @ Graphemica
Anyway these 4 bytes of data are where our 4 billion comes from. So that is my hint. Thus the problem is not really with the reading side per se, the data was actually written corruptly.