- I discovered that ejabberd_http was expecting parsed data.
- I discovered that gen_tcp could partially parse HTTP.
- I ran into the weird mod_adhoc problem again.
Still experiencing the problem where ejabberd will not start up when I have a call to binary_part in my module and no problem when I remove it. I did a make clean just to be sure, but that did not help. For reference, it appears that the erlc that make uses and the one that I get when I type which erlc appear to be the same. The output from erl at startup is:
Erlang R14B04 (erts-5.8.5) [source] [64-bit] [smp:2:2] [rq:2] [async-threads:0] [kernel-poll:false]
Eshell V5.8.5 (abort with ^G)
A cursory google search turned up that this problem has been seen by other people as well. Here is the link to the ejabberd site:
So at least I"m not the only one that is seeing something like this.
An update: I noticed the following in the ejabberd log:
=ERROR REPORT==== 2012-01-10 20:13:02 ===
Loading of /opt/ejabberd-2.1.9/lib/ejabberd-2.1.9/ebin/megaphone.beam failed: badfile
=ERROR REPORT==== 2012-01-10 20:13:02 ===
beam/beam_load.c(1313): Error loading module megaphone:
use of opcode 152; this emulator supports only up to 137
I thought this was kind of odd, since erlc and erl both seem to think that I'm using the same version. So I took a look in the bin directory. This contained a file called "beam" Using the "file" command I got back the following:
beam: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.0, not stripped
This is not good, since it means that the version of erlang being used by ejabberd could be different from the version that was compiling it.
Running
ejabberdctl debug
Then using ctrl-c and then hitting v for version yielded the following information:
Erlang (BEAM) emulator version 5.6.4
Compiled on Wed Oct 8 15:34:26 2008
Running /usr/local/bin/erlc and following the same procedure gives me the following:
Erlang (BEAM) emulator version 5.8.5
Compiled on Sun Nov 20 03:34:05 2011
This is what I would call, not good. Not good at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment