[Gc] Re: gcc 3.4 gc-test program boehm-gc/tests/test.c fails on linux 2.6.7

Boehm, Hans hans.boehm at hp.com
Tue Aug 17 10:32:33 PDT 2004


Thanks.

This should have included Bryce McKinley's merge of GC6.3.
(See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2004-q3/msg00576.html .)

I'll do some more testing on an X86 machine with a 2.6 kernel.

I explicitly copied Bryce as well.  He may have some insight.

Hans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Lumby [mailto:johnlumby at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 8:27 AM
> To: Hans.Boehm at hp.com
> Cc: gc at napali.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: RE: [Gc] Re: gcc 3.4 gc-test program boehm-gc/tests/test.c
> fails on linux 2.6.7
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I do not follow gcc development, therefore I don't 
> know whether 
> the tree I downloaded is after "Bryce finished the 6.3 
> merge".    How would 
> I tell?    I don't even understand that version number since 
> the versions 
> I'm familiar with are like 3.4.1 etc.
> 
> I did this on Sunday 15th:
>    CVS_RSH=ssh 
> CVSROOT=:ext:anoncvs at savannah.gnu.org:/cvsroot/gcc cvs -z9 
> checkout  -P gcc
> which has const char version_string[] = "3.5.0 20040815 
> (experimental)";
> then configure and make and then make -k check which failed with :
> make[3]: Entering directory 
> `/home/gcc_from_cvs/040815/build_dir/i686-pc-linux-gnu/boehm-gc'
> Switched to incremental mode
> Emulating dirty bits with mprotect/signals
> Segfault at 0x1040ef64
> Unexpected bus error or segmentation fault
> FAIL: gctest
> 
> (and just to clarify one thing, I did not alter any source in 
> this tree at 
> all).
> 
> This failure looks slightly different from the one wih the 
> 3.4.1 (more 
> messages about the error, whereas on 3.4.1 all I see is "Killed").
> 
> My environment is i686 pentium III with glibc 2.3.2 and 
> kernel 2.6.7      
> (same failure on another machine which is same except pentium II).
> 
> Yes, I was not intending to publish my workaround fix of disabling 
> incremental although I'm happy to do so if need be.     A 
> real fix would be 
> better.     However I can confirm that I've gone ahead and 
> installed my 
> 3.4.1 with that change and oher compiles since then appear to be fine
> 
> John
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Hans Boehm <Hans.Boehm at hp.com>
> To: John Lumby <johnlumby at hotmail.com>
> CC: gc at napali.hpl.hp.com, Hans.Boehm at hp.com
> Subject: RE: [Gc] Re: gcc 3.4 gc-test program 
> boehm-gc/tests/test.c fails 
> onlinux 2.6.7
> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> I had missed the other bug report.
> 
> Did you try after Bryce finished the 6.3 merge?  If that 
> still fails, I'd
> like to track down the problem.  I did some testing on a 2.6 Itanium
> machine, but my X86 testing probably used older kernels.
> 
> If you were planning on having this patch checked into the 3.4.2 tree
> we should post it on java-patches.  It may be better to backport a
> real patch, once we're sure we have the correct one.  I think 
> either one
> is fine for 99.5% of applications, but there may be someone out there
> trying to use the incremental collector by turning it on in 
> native code.
> 
> Hans
> 
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, John Lumby wrote:
> 
>  > Thank-you Hans.    I made that change and also made the 
> following two
>  > changes to the compiler itself to be consistent:
>  > . in gcc-3.4.1/boehm-gc/misc.c
>  >        ifdef-out entire function GC_enable_incremental
>  > . in gcc-3.4.1/boehm-gc/pcr_interface.c
>  >       change call to GC_enable_incremental() into an ABORT
>  > This is on the assumption that the gcc never uses this 
> function as you
>  > indicated.
>  >
>  > With those changes, build ok and make check ok.
>  >
>  > Perhaps you could kindly confirm that these changes are ok 
> for gcc and I 
> can
>  > then install it.
>  >
>  > By the way, just for interest I tried building and make 
> check'ing the gcc
>  > tree from cvs and it also fails in the boehm-gc test, so 
> the changes you
>  > mentioned that you recently made
>  > (pthread_stop_world.c)  are apparently not enough.  I also see 
> gcc-Bugzilla
>  > Bug 15812 open.  (I personally am not intending to instal 
> gcc 3.5 until 
> it
>  > becomes stable release)
>  >
>  > John
>  >
>  > ----Original Message Follows----
>  > From: Hans Boehm <Hans.Boehm at hp.com>
>  > To: John Lumby <johnlumby at hotmail.com>
>  > CC: gc at napali.hpl.hp.com, Hans.Boehm at hp.com
>  > Su  bject: RE: [Gc] Re: The gcc 3.4 gc-test program 
> boehm-gc/tests/test.c
>  > failson linux 2.
>  > Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
>  >
>  > The easiest patch may be to remove the 
> GC_enable_incremental call around
>  > line 1809 in tests/test.c, or change the surrounding #if 
> to a #if 0.
>  >
>  > (I'm not sure about the line number in your version, but 
> it's the last
>  > such call in the file.)
>  >
>  > The other workaround is probably to build with 
> --enable-parallel-mark,
>  > which is probably a good idea if you are targetting mostly
>  > multiprocessors.
>  >
>  > Hans
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. 
> Use special 
> stationery, fonts and colors. 
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&
DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.


More information about the Gc mailing list