(using OS X 10.9.4) I have this cool Ruby script which scans system/firewall logs and tells me if anything odd is happening. The script runs on a 1 second loop, however at exactly the 3852nd iteration, the script terminates with a "stack level too deep (SystemStackError)" error.
I am not new to this error and it seems to appear when a script enters a loop, and the system sandbox (probably) terminates it after a set amount of time or a specific parameter is reached.
I attempted to bypass the error by running the script as root, however this had no effect. I have also considered programming another script to relaunch the original script when it detects its absence in the command: ps -efs' output, however this is a very 'clunky' method which i would prefer to avoid.
I have also conducted some research into the error on the "Stack Overflow", however only found questions answered by altering the offending script ,as the error is in their case due to a bug in the code, which is not the case for me.
So my question:
Is there any possible way to bypass the "stack level too deep (SystemStackError)" error
Thanks in advance, greatly appreciated.
I am trying to learn fortran. I wanted to replicate a certain step in a paper but I ran into trouble.
I compiled the file AERsimulation.f95 (I turned on all debugging functions in gfortran I am aware of) I could generate an .out file without any errors (a lot of warnings, however...)
When I tried to run the .out file I got the error message
Fortran runtime error: Index '0' of dimension 1 of array 'k' below lower bound of 1
Now, it is quite difficult for me to understand why exactly this happens. I guess, my question is, whether there is a better way of debugging, so that I can see and click through the code 'live' and see why the error occurs. (I am thinking of the matlab-debugger for instance...)
Any suggestion/hint is very welcome
The files I use are
AERsimulation.f95
AERDATANB.TXT
Thank you very much
Best
Derrick
The meaning of your error message is that you try to access an array element at the position 0 of the array. Arrays in Fortran start at 1 by default.
If you are looking for a better way to debug, try gdb (command line) or if you prefer a graphical interface you can try the Netbeans IDE. It has (limited) support for Fortran an a debugging mode where you can click line by line through the code and see the values of all variables and so on.
On command line try:
gdb name_of_executable
run
the debugger will stop at the line which causes the error.
Lua features hook call BEFORE every processed line. What I need is a call AFTER line is processed, so that I can check for encountered errors and so on. Is there a way to make such kind of call?
Otherwise things get a little bit confusing if error is encountered at the last line of the script. I don't get any feedback.
UPDATE #1
We want to catch both Lua errors and 'our' errors asserted via lua_error(*L) C interface, and Lua should throw correct debug info including the line number where the error occurred.
Using return hook we always get error line number -1, which is not what we want. Using any combination of pcall and any hook setup after lua_error(*L) we get either line number -1, or number of the next executed line, never a correct one.
SOLUTION#
We managed to make everything work. The thing was that Lua throws a real C exception after it detects an error, so some of our 'cleaning & finalizing' C code called from Lua operation did not execute, which messed up some flags and so on. The solution was to execute 'cleaning code' right before calling lua_error(...). This is correct and desired Lua behavior as we really want to stop executing the function once lua_error(...) is called, it was our mistake to expect any code would be executed after lua_error(...) call.
Tnx Paul Kulchenko, some of this behavior was found while trying to design a simple example script which reproduces the problem.
Try setting a return hook: it'll be called after the last line is executed.
I'm not sure debug hook is the best solution for what you are trying to do (or you need to provide more details). If you just need to check for run-time errors, why use debug hooks at all if you can run your code with pcall and get an error message that points to the line number where the error happened (or use xpcall, which also allows you to get a stack trace)? You can combine this with debug.getinfo(func, "L") to get a table whose indexes are valid line numbers for the function.
I set up a scheduled task to run under my account. Everything it runs, even if it is successful, returns an operational code of (2). I looked this up this error code at the below link, and it claims it cannot find the specific file.
http://www.hiteksoftware.com/knowledge/articles/049.htm
Even if I do something very simple, I get back operational code of (2). For example:
run program: cmd.exe
start in path: c:\windows\system32
I start the task and I see the process running in my task manager, so I kill the task. I then check in the history of scheduled task and it shows up as (2).
Something more realistic of what I am doing:
<?
/* file in c:\php\test.php */
echo "hello";
?>
run program: php.exe
start in path: c:\php
arguments: -f test.php
Everything works in the command line, but Windows schedule task keeps returning operational code (2). I should be seeing an operational code of (0), which means successful, correct?
You may not have put a path in the "Start In (Optional) box of the Edit Action dialog box.
Even though you had a path on the program that was being executed, Windows 7 still wants you to tell it where to run the program.
TL/DR: Don't worry about it. This just means the task finished, but tells you nothing about whether it was successful or how it failed. Look at the "Last Run Result" for that information.
The question and the top answer are confusing the notion of a "return code", which shows up in Task Scheduler as the "Last Run Result" with the "OpCode"/"Operational Code" that shows up in the history of a task.
If I create a simple Python program that does nothing more than sys.exit(7), and run it via task scheduler, I get a Last Run Result of 0x7, and an opcode of 2. If I have it do nothing, or sys.exit(0), I get a Last Run Result of "The operation completed successfully (0x0)" and still an opcode of 2. In other words, the return code from the executed program determines the Last Run Result. The OpCode appears to be a constant 2. This also establishes that the opcode 2 is not related to the return code 2 that likely means the file's not found. We know the file was found as it executed, and returned different Last Run Results depending on the code contained.
Further, a Windows forum post points out that this history view is really coming out of the event log. Sure enough, I can find the same events in the event log (always with a value of 2). This means the definition of the OpCode is going to be the same as the definition used for events, and is less of a task scheduler concept than a Windows event concept.
What is an opcode for an event? I've struggled to get a clear answer, but as best I can tell, it appears it's ultimately controlled by the program writing to the event log. There's documentation around for defining opcodes in your program. In this case, the thing writing to the event log would be Task Scheduler itself or something else in Windows.
A final observation: If I go to the event viewer and look for Log: Microsoft-Windows-TaskScheduler/Operational, Source: Microsoft-Windows-TaskScheduler and Event ID: 102,201, add the column for Operational Code, and sort, I see it is always a 2. And events 100 and 200 are always a 1. This applies not just to my manual experiments, but also includes every other random program that's using scheduled tasks, e.g. Dropbox and Google updaters that are working as far as I know.
Put all this together and I would strongly bet that the events generated while starting up a scheduled task are hardcoded by Windows to use an opcode of 1 when writing to the event log, and the events generated while finishing a task (successful or not - which goes in the Last Run Result) are hardcoded by Windows to use an opcode of 2 when writing to the event log. This opcode appears to be a red herring that doesn't affect anything we need to worry about beyond curiosity.
I was striking out until I just deleted & re-created the scheduled task...now it works. Don't know why but there it is.
Okay I know I am late to the party here, but I think a lot of the problem stems from confusing the Operational Code with a Return Code. I'm not an expert in Windows programming or internals (I make a living using a Windows system to program, but my programming isn't for Windows systems).
If I understand correctly:
The Operational Code is set by what ever routine being run at whatever value the programmer decided to set it at.
The Return Code is indicative of success or failure.
Consider the following (edited) example from the history of one of my scheduled tasks:
Event 201, Task Category "Action completed" shows an Operational Code of (2).
Down below under the General tab, is the message:
Task Scheduler successfully completed task "\My_task" , instance "{xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx}" , action "C:.....\blahblah.exe" with return code 0.
There's the indication of success. A different return code would indicate a failure. The Operational Code of (2) merely indicates that the routine was finished (in this case) when reported. I don't believe there's any set values to be interpreted for the Operation Code.
I've been having a similar issue and found that in addition to what was suggested in both the accepted answer and its comments I had to do one other thing. I had to re-create the task and set its "configure for" to Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, or Windows 2000 I dont understand why, since its not for any of those OS' but after I did so my task actually worked.
If this runs, and works, yet you still get an error code try entering exit 0 at the end of your script.
It took me a lot of googling to find that so hopefully this is helpful to someone.
#ojchase is right.
Opcodes are attached to events by the event provider. An opcode defines a numeric value that identifies the activity or a point within an activity that the application was performing when it raised the event.
Opcode 1 means that, when producing the event, the application was in the start of an activity.
Opcode 2 means that, when producing the event, the app. was at the end of an activity.
So opcodes have little to do with success or failure.
Sources:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.diagnostics.eventing.reader.standardeventopcode?view=net-5.0
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.diagnostics.eventing.reader.eventopcode?view=net-5.0
When running something like "make install", there is a lot of information displayed in the terminal window. Some lines start with make[1], make[2], make[3] or make[4]. What do these mean? Does this mean there is some kind of error?
When make is invoked recursively, each make distinguishes itself in output messages with a count. That is, messages beginning "make[3]" are from the third make that was invoked. It is not indicative of an error of any kind, but is intended to enable you to keep track of what is happening. In particular, you can tell in which directory make is being run to help debug the build if any errors do occur.