Skip to content
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

EchoServer tests occasionally crash on Windows #2

Closed
madsager opened this issue Oct 7, 2011 · 1 comment
Closed

EchoServer tests occasionally crash on Windows #2

madsager opened this issue Oct 7, 2011 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
os-windows P1 A high priority bug; for example, a single project is unusable or has many test failures

Comments

@madsager
Copy link
Contributor

madsager commented Oct 7, 2011

The EchoServer tests occasionally hits what should be an unreachable path.

@madsager
Copy link
Contributor Author

madsager commented Oct 7, 2011

Added Fixed label.

@madsager madsager added Type-Defect P1 A high priority bug; for example, a single project is unusable or has many test failures os-windows labels Oct 7, 2011
@madsager madsager self-assigned this Oct 7, 2011
@DartBot DartBot mentioned this issue Jun 3, 2015
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2024
#1: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/345363
#1R: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/345780

Change-Id: I4fe2b4cb879aee6cdccef0ff233ac86e8d0765ec
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/345827
Reviewed-by: Brian Wilkerson <brianwilkerson@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Phil Quitslund <pquitslund@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Konstantin Shcheglov <scheglov@google.com>
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2024
Change-Id: Icabef092ce55f981bc6a21819e3733340f037155
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/354043
Commit-Queue: Konstantin Shcheglov <scheglov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Wilkerson <brianwilkerson@google.com>
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 18, 2024
During my work on dart-lang/language#3648, I
ran into some trybot failures with an exception that looked like this:

    RangeError (index): Invalid value: Valid value range is empty: -1
    #0      List.[] (dart:core-patch/growable_array.dart:264:36)
    #1      List.removeLast (dart:core-patch/growable_array.dart:336:20)
    #2      InferenceContext.popFunctionBodyContext (package:analyzer/src/generated/resolver.dart:124:33)
    #3      ResolverVisitor.visitBlockFunctionBody (package:analyzer/src/generated/resolver.dart:1890:38)

Some quick reading of the code revealed that `popFunctionBodyContext`
always removed a single entry from a list, and
`pushFunctionBodyContext` always added a single entry to it. The two
calls were always paired up using a straightforward try/finally
pattern that seemed like it should guarantee proper nesting, making
this exception impossible:

    try {
      inferenceContext.pushFunctionBodyContext(...);
      ...
    } finally {
      ...
      inferenceContext.popFunctionBodyContext(node);
    }

After a lot of headscratching and experimenting, I eventually figured
out what was happening: an exception was being thrown during
`pushFunctionBodyContext`, _before_ it had a chance to add an entry to
the list. But since the exception happened inside the `try` block, the
call to `popFunctionBodyContext` would happen anyway. As a result, the
pop would fail, causing its own exception, and the exception that was
the original source of the problem would be lost.

This seemed like a code smell to me: where possible, the clean-up
logic in `finally` clauses should be simple enough that it can always
succeed, without causing an exception, even if a previous exception
has put data structures in an unexpected state.

And I had gained enough familiarity with the code over the course of
my debugging to see that what we were doing in those `finally` clauses
was more complex than necessary:

- In the ResolverVisitor, we were pushing and popping a stack of
  `BodyInferenceContext` objects using the try/finally pattern
  described above. But we were only ever accessing the top entry on
  the stack, which meant that the same state could be maintained with
  a single BodyInferenceContext pointer, and some logic that can't
  possibly lead to an exception in the `finally` clause:

    var oldBodyContext = _bodyContext;
    try {
      _bodyContext = ...;
      ...
    } finally {
      _bodyContext = oldBodyContext;
    }

- In the ResolverVisitor and the ErrorVerifier, we were also pushing
  and popping a stack of booleans tracking whether the currently
  enclosing function (or initializer) has access to `this`. In the
  ResolverVisitor, this information wasn't being used at all, so it
  could be safely removed. In the ErrorVerifier, it was being used,
  but it was possible to simplify it in a similar way, so that it was
  tracked with a single boolean (`_hasAccessToThis`), rather than a
  stack.

Simplifying this logic brings several advantages:

- As noted above, since it's now impossible for an exception to occur
  in the `finally` clause, exceptions occurring in the `try` clause
  won't get lost, making debugging easier.

- The code should be more performant, since it no longer requires
  auxiliary heap-allocated stacks.

- The code is (IMHO) easier to understand, since the try/catch pattern
  for maintaining the new `_bodyContext` and `_hasAccessToThis` fields
  just involves saving a field in a local variable (and restoring it
  later), rather than calling out to separate classes.

Change-Id: I61ae80fb28a69760ea0b2856a6954b4a68cfcbe1
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/358200
Reviewed-by: Konstantin Shcheglov <scheglov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Brian Wilkerson <brianwilkerson@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Paul Berry <paulberry@google.com>
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
os-windows P1 A high priority bug; for example, a single project is unusable or has many test failures
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant