[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#29464: gcc-7 breaks guile-2.2.2?
From: |
Dan Kegel |
Subject: |
bug#29464: gcc-7 breaks guile-2.2.2? |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:53:00 -0800 |
Does the bug even happen without the vestigal -O0 ?
I removed that and things seem to be going better in 2.2.3,
0 failures out of 4 runs :-)
See https://launchpad.net/~dank/+archive/ubuntu/guile-2.2/+packages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Rob Browning <address@hidden> wrote:
> Dan Kegel <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Building guile-2.2.2 seems fine on Ubuntu 17.04, but fails with
>>
>> Warning: Unwind-only `out-of-memory' exception; skipping pre-unwind handler.
>> FAIL: test-out-of-memory
>> ==================================
>> 1 of 39 tests failed
>> Please report to address@hidden
>
> I also see this with 2.2.3, and assuming it's the same issue, I think
> I've figured out one thing that reliably triggers it:
>
> CFLAGS=...-fstack-protector-strong
>
> By default in Debian we build using the dpkg-buildpackage flags with a
> (possibly vestigial) -O0 override on amd64, i.e. we have:
>
> $ DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-O0 dpkg-buildflags
> CFLAGS=-g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/home/rlb/src/guile=.
> -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -O0
> CPPFLAGS=-Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> CXXFLAGS=-g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/home/rlb/src/guile=.
> -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security
> FCFLAGS=-g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/home/rlb/src/guile=.
> -fstack-protector-strong
> FFLAGS=-g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/home/rlb/src/guile=.
> -fstack-protector-strong
> GCJFLAGS=-g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/home/rlb/src/guile=.
> -fstack-protector-strong
> LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,relro
> OBJCFLAGS=-g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/home/rlb/src/guile=.
> -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security
> OBJCXXFLAGS=-g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/home/rlb/src/guile=.
> -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security
>
> In current Debian unstable, this crashes in test-out-of-memory as above:
>
> PASS: test-smob-mark
> PASS: test-smob-mark-race
> wrote
> `/<<BUILDDIR>>/guile-2.2-2.2.3+1/cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.A/<<BUILDDIR>>/guile-2.2-2.2.3+1/test-suite/standalone/test-stack-overflow.go'
> allocate_stack failed: Cannot allocate memory
> allocate_stack failed: Cannot allocate memory
> allocate_stack failed: Cannot allocate memory
> allocate_stack failed: Cannot allocate memory
> allocate_stack failed: Cannot allocate memory
> PASS: test-stack-overflow
> wrote
> `/<<BUILDDIR>>/guile-2.2-2.2.3+1/cache/guile/ccache/2.2-LE-8-3.A/<<BUILDDIR>>/guile-2.2-2.2.3+1/test-suite/standalone/test-out-of-memory.go'
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 134348800 bytes
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 134217728 bytes
> GC Warning: Out of Memory! Heap size: 1 MiB. Returning NULL!
> error creating finalization thread: Cannot allocate memory
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 1000132608 bytes
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 1000001536 bytes
> GC Warning: Out of Memory! Heap size: 1 MiB. Returning NULL!
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 499712 bytes
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 65536 bytes
> GC Warning: Out of Memory! Heap size: 1 MiB. Returning NULL!
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 499712 bytes
> GC Warning: Failed to expand heap by 65536 bytes
> GC Warning: Out of Memory! Heap size: 1 MiB. Returning NULL!
> Warning: Unwind-only `out-of-memory' exception; skipping pre-unwind handler.
> FAIL: test-out-of-memory
> ==================================
> 1 of 39 tests failed
> Please report to address@hidden
> ==================================
>
> After investigating for a while, I found that just this was enough to
> cause the crash when building from the 2.2.3 release archive:
>
> CFLAGS='-fstack-protector-strong' ./configure
> make check
>
> If that flag is the problem, I'm wondering whether for now I'd be better
> off quashing it, or temporarily disabling the test. i.e. is the test
> detecting that something's actually wrong, or does the flag just break
> one of the test's assumptions?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Rob Browning
> rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
> GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
> GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4