Status Update
Comments
ae...@google.com <ae...@google.com>
ke...@google.com <ke...@google.com>
ap...@google.com <ap...@google.com> #2
1. Have you saw crash in real device or only in simulators?
2. Do you use dynamic feature for language ID?
na...@google.com <na...@google.com> #3
Tested on Android 12 Emulator with custom executor, but cannot repro this issue.
lo...@gmail.com <lo...@gmail.com> #4
-
Second crash in the description is from a real device. Experienced it myself on two different Xiaomi phones, plus lots of crashes from users in the Google Play console.
-
Dynamic features are not used in the application.
As a wild guess, I have downgraded build tools from 31.0.0 to 30.0.3, compileSdk from 31 to 30, and moved all work with Language ID to the service in a separate process (just to be sure that crash can kill secondary process instead of main). This combination is in beta for 2 days by now and I don't see any SIGSEGV crashes.
ty...@gmail.com <ty...@gmail.com> #5
Hmm, I feel the crash might be something related to separate/secondary process.
I also changed compileSdk and targetSDK to 31 but still cannot repro this issue.
lo...@gmail.com <lo...@gmail.com> #6
On the contrary, there was no separate process before, when crashes started.
In the new build (with the aforementioned changes) I can see SIGSEGV crash, but only one instead of dozens and it has a bit different backtrace:
signal 11 (SIGSEGV), code 1 (SEGV_MAPERR)
liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
backtrace:
#00 pc 000000000003c7c0 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 000000000003b960 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 000000000003bb48 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 000000000003bafc /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000036c98 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000032714 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000031cac /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/split_config.arm64_v8a.apk!lib/arm64-v8a/liblanguage_id_jni.so (offset 0x11e000)
#00 pc 0000000000057438 /data/app/azagroup.reedy-mF7zTu2bv_ELlbFArwNgqA==/oat/arm64/base.odex (offset 0x57000)
Description
Jetpack Compose version: 2024.01.00
Jetpack Compose component(s) used:
RangeSlider
Android Studio Build: Build #AI-231.9392.1.2311.11330709, built on January 19, 2024
Kotlin version: 1.9.22
Material 3 version : 1.2.0-beta02
Steps to Reproduce or Code Sample to Reproduce:
RangeSlider
SliderRange
is failing therequire(isUnspecified || start <= endInclusive )
check on line 2120 due to rounding error as can be seen in the first line of the stack trace, wherestart
is only 0.00005 of a pixel greater than theendInclusive
Suggestion of a solution to fix this error
It is a known issue that floating point calculation is inherently imprecise in a sense that the resulting value is correct up to a specific decimal position. I suspect that the same is happening here when the start point and end point coordinates are being calculated. The
start
point may have gotten593.6667500000000000000000...
rounded to593.66675
andendInclusive
may have gotten593.66674999999999999999....
rounded to593.6667
.When doing floating point calculations for UI it is imperative to have a consistent cut off strategy for how many decimal places should be considered system-wise for rendering. In my experience 2 decimal places are ample for pixel-related arithmetics; anything beyond makes no visual difference.
So trim pixel values to only carry 2 decimal positions and discard everything from 3rd decimal position onwards. (Do NOT round the values!)
Following the strategy above system-wide for UI pixel-related arithmetics, will make sure that elusive errors like this do not happen.
Stack trace: