GNU bug report logs - #63365
30.0.50; GCC 13.1 breaks building Emacs with native-compilation

Previous Next

Full log

Message #185 received at 63365 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Cyril Arnould <cyril.arnould <at> outlook.com>
Cc: 63365 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, arash <at> gnu.org, acorallo <at> gnu.org,
 svraka.andras <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#63365: 30.0.50; GCC 13.1 breaks building Emacs with
 native-compilation
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:37:27 +0300

> From: Cyril Arnould <cyril.arnould <at> outlook.com>
> CC: "63365 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <63365 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>,
> 	András Svraka <svraka.andras <at> gmail.com>, Andrea Corallo
> 	<acorallo <at> gnu.org>, Arash Esbati <arash <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:28:12 +0000
> 
> >   $ cd src
> >   $ make lread.o -W lread.c CFLAGS='-O2 -fno-optimize-sibling-calls'
> >   $ make
> >
> > The last "make command will produce an emacs.exe binary where lread.c
> > is compiled without the problematic optimization.
> 
> I see, thanks. Is there a reason you left out the -g3 and -gdwarf-2
> switches?

No particular reason.

> To be sure, I've tried it with and without those, but I got
> similar results so far: all of the combinations I've tried are
> failing. I'm trying to widen the search to see if I can figure out which
> file is the culprit.

Since the problem disappears under GDB, it is probably memory-related.
So it figures that it behaves like a classic heisenbug.
Unfortunately, it means more combinations to try and more time to
waste...

> >From the tests I've run it seems to me that there is absolutely no
> consistency with which lisp files cause the crashes. Each of the builds
> resulted in different lisp files failing. Now, when I run the make
> command again after a failed attempt, the *same* lisp files will keep
> failing to build over and over. However, I also noticed that if I run
> the exact same build commands again from a clean checkout, different
> lisp files will fail the second time around. Is it normal that there are
> run-to-run variations with GCC?

See above: I'm not surprised.  Especially since MinGW64 uses ASLR.
However, using sequential builds, as suggested by Andrea, could
perhaps help.  I'd also consider building with -Wl,--disable-dynamicbase
for example like this (when you run Make in the src directory):

  make LD_SWITCH_SYSTEM='-Wl,--disable-dynamicbase'

Maybe this will make the bug less unpredictable, who knows?

Previous Next

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