GNU bug report logs - #29464
gcc-7 breaks guile-2.2.2?

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 29464 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dan Kegel <dank <at> kegel.com>
To: Rob Browning <rlb <at> defaultvalue.org>
Cc: 29464 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 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 <rlb <at> defaultvalue.org> wrote:
> Dan Kegel <dank <at> kegel.com> 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 bug-guile <at> gnu.org
>
> 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 bug-guile <at> gnu.org
>   ==================================
>
> 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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.