bug#29368: Unreliable failing tests / segfaulting guile

[Martin Castillo]

Hi,
> It’s seems to be the Guile running ‘list-runtime-roots’ that’s
> segfaulting.  Could you try running it manually to see what happens?
> (The expected behavior is to write a list of store file names on
> standard output.)

When running in a loop, I see the expected output. However, after a file
I get the segfault!

;; sorry, I'm new to scheme, what would be a better way? without
;; reloading the file again and again?
scheme@(guile-user)> (while #t (load-from-path "list-runtime-roots"))
... ;; skipping repeated expected output
srfi/srfi-1.scm:592:17: In procedure map1:
srfi/srfi-1.scm:592:17: In procedure fport_read: Kein passender Prozess
gefunden ;; No matching process found

Entering a new prompt.  Type `,bt' for a backtrace or `,q' to continue.

scheme@(guile-user) [1]> ,bt
         102 (primitive-load-path "list-runtime-roots")
In list-runtime-roots:
   145:47101 (_)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
   679:15100 (append-map _ _ . _)
   592:29 99 (map1 _)
   592:29 98 (map1 _)
   592:29 97 (map1 _)
   592:29 96 (map1 _)
   592:29 95 (map1 _)
   592:29 94 (map1 _)
   592:29 93 (map1 _)
   592:29 92 (map1 _)
   592:29 91 (map1 _)
   592:29 90 (map1 _)
   592:29 89 (map1 _)
   592:29 88 (map1 _)
   592:29 87 (map1 _)
   592:29 86 (map1 _)
   592:29 85 (map1 _)
   592:29 84 (map1 _)
   592:29 83 (map1 _)
   592:29 82 (map1 _)
   592:29 81 (map1 _)
   592:29 80 (map1 _)
   592:29 79 (map1 _)
   592:29 78 (map1 _)
   592:29 77 (map1 _)
   592:29 76 (map1 _)
   592:29 75 (map1 _)
   592:29 74 (map1 _)
   592:29 73 (map1 _)
   592:29 72 (map1 _)
   592:29 71 (map1 _)
   592:29 70 (map1 _)
   592:29 69 (map1 _)
   592:29 68 (map1 _)
   592:29 67 (map1 _)
   592:29 66 (map1 _)
   592:29 65 (map1 _)
   592:29 64 (map1 _)
   592:29 63 (map1 _)
   592:29 62 (map1 _)
   592:29 61 (map1 _)
   592:29 60 (map1 _)
   592:29 59 (map1 _)
   592:29 58 (map1 _)
   592:29 57 (map1 _)
   592:29 56 (map1 _)
   592:29 55 (map1 _)
   592:29 54 (map1 _)
   592:29 53 (map1 _)
   592:29 52 (map1 _)
   592:29 51 (map1 _)
   592:29 50 (map1 _)
   592:29 49 (map1 _)
   592:29 48 (map1 _)
   592:29 47 (map1 _)
   592:29 46 (map1 _)
   592:29 45 (map1 _)
   592:29 44 (map1 _)
   592:29 43 (map1 _)
   592:29 42 (map1 _)
   592:29 41 (map1 _)
   592:29 40 (map1 _)
   592:29 39 (map1 _)
   592:29 38 (map1 _)
   592:29 37 (map1 _)
   592:29 36 (map1 _)
   592:29 35 (map1 _)
   592:29 34 (map1 _)
   592:29 33 (map1 _)
   592:29 32 (map1 _)
   592:29 31 (map1 _)
   592:29 30 (map1 _)
   592:29 29 (map1 _)
   592:29 28 (map1 _)
   592:29 27 (map1 _)
   592:29 26 (map1 _)
   592:29 25 (map1 _)
   592:29 24 (map1 _)
   592:29 23 (map1 _)
   592:29 22 (map1 _)
   592:29 21 (map1 _)
   592:29 20 (map1 _)
   592:29 19 (map1 _)
   592:29 18 (map1 _)
   592:29 17 (map1 _)
   592:29 16 (map1 _)
   592:29 15 (map1 _)
   592:29 14 (map1 _)
   592:29 13 (map1 _)
   592:29 12 (map1 _)
   592:29 11 (map1 _)
   592:29 10 (map1 _)
   592:29  9 (map1 _)
   592:29  8 (map1 _)
   592:29  7 (map1 _)
   592:29  6 (map1 _)
   592:29  5 (map1 _)
   592:29  4 (map1 _)
   592:29  3 (map1 _)
   592:29  2 (map1 _)
   592:29  1 (map1 _)
   592:17  0 (map1 ("8947"))

I'm running this in qemu with 2 cores and 2.4GB ram.

Martin