[Gc] Re: gcc 3.4 gc-test program boehm-gc/tests/test.c fails
on linux 2.6.7
hans.boehm at hp.com
Tue Aug 17 10:32:33 PDT 2004
This should have included Bryce McKinley's merge of GC6.3.
(See https://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.
> -----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:
> CVSROOT=:ext:anoncvs at savannah.gnu.org:/cvsroot/gcc cvs -z9
> checkout -P gcc
> which has const char version_string = "3.5.0 20040815
> then configure and make and then make -k check which failed with :
> make: Entering directory
> 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
> 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
> ----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.
> 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
> > 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
> > Bug 15812 open. (I personally am not intending to instal
> gcc 3.5 until
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
More information about the Gc