Re: panic: COND_DESTROY(6)

Superficial googling suggests that cond_destroy is a Unix system-call which, per the documentation, is expected to return zero, any nonzero value indicating some kind of error. We may presume (guess...) is instead returning 6. The document unfortunately does not then go on to give a list of them. Perhaps you can chase-down the OS source code of the call-handler or otherwise find a detailed explanation of each return-code possibility, but perhaps the discussion alone in the man page will provoke some worthy ideas. The fact that the problem occurs rarely-but-consistently pretty much establishes that what you have is some kind of rare-but-possible race condition bug in your code, which is “a one-in-a-million chance, but it is executed millions of times.” Sux, but that’s always the way that such things are. You didn’t need all that extra hair, anyway . . .

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: panic: COND_DESTROY(6) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 26, 2012 at 15:27 UTC
The fact that the problem occurs rarely-but-consistently pretty much establishes that what you have is some kind of rare-but-possible race condition bug in your code, ... More guff. Panics are usually indicative of a bug in perl. User code should not be able to cause them. When are you going to get bored of spouting nonsense? With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]
Re^3: panic: COND_DESTROY(6) by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jan 31, 2012 at 02:56 UTC
I admit that it is becoming quite entertaining to provoke you. It’s always so consistently successful... `:->` I ring the little bell, you jump. Every time.
Re^4: panic: COND_DESTROY(6) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 31, 2012 at 06:01 UTC
If wasting the time of random third parties by answering their serious, usually work-related, to them important, questions with rafts of totally misleading, made up garbage is what you find 'entertaining', you deserve my sympathy. But you ain't gonna get it. I suggest you seek some less offensive past time; pornography; long runs on short piers; catching bullets ... With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]