[Gc] Re: Solaris/X96 GC issues (was /bin/sh portability issues ...)

Rainer Orth ro at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
Mon Jul 10 05:21:41 PDT 2006


Hans,

> I checked Rainer's patch into the 7.0 tree, and added it to my current
> 6.8 tree.  Thanks.

great, thanks.

> That doesn't help with the Studio 11 cc problems that Rainer reported
> earlier.  Someone with access to a suitable machine will have to track
> those down.  The next step is to identify which objects are getting
> prematurely collected and why.  It would be useful to see whether the
> offending list is referenced by an automatic or static pointer.  In
> either case, it is also worth checking that GC_with_callee_saves_pushed
> ends up calling getcontext(), as it should.  If it is a static pointer,
> and getcontext() is called correctly, I would next check that roots are
> being registered correctly, and the offending pointer is in a root
> segment.  Setting the GC_DUMP_REGULARLY environment variable prints
> roots on a regular basis.
> 
> It is possible that the studio 11 issue also affects gcc, but just
> happened to not be exercised.

I'll start investigating this once I find some time.

> Slightly longer term, I'm not sure about the right path.  I don't really
> have enough cycles to work on 7.0, so I don't expect to spend time on
> 6.8, except for relatively small and critical patches.  If someone can
> generate a 6.8 patch to make Solaris/X86 work, I'm certainly fine with
> just putting it into gcc.  I suspect it would be big enough to be
> problematic.

Could you please provide a snapshot of 6.8 so I can test it on
Solaris/SPARC and Solaris/x86, try the integration into GCC and see if it
works?  Depending on the amount of changes since 6.6, it might be
acceptable for 4.2.  At the very least, I'd like to get my patch for 64-bit
Solaris/x86 support into 4.2 so it at least compiles out of the box.

> Overall, my vote would be for
> 
> 1) Making 7.0 work reliably on Solaris/X86.  (I have been testing
> occasionally on Solaris/SPARC, and it seems OK there.)
> 2) Merging 7.0 into 4.3 early in that cycle.  My expectation is that
> that would generate some breakage, mostly on less common platforms.  But
> on platforms like Linux, I think 7.0 is actually now fairly stable.

That's probably the best course for 4.3, but not an option for 4.2.

	Rainer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University


More information about the Gc mailing list