[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [bigloo] Re: Bigloo on Linux/ARM



Hi,

I've finally managed to build a 2.6d bdb with full debug symbols, but when I
run it, no code seem to be executed, the segfault occurs before _start, as
is confirmed by "ldd -r":

$ ldd -r ./bin/bdb 
        libbigloobdl_s-2.6d.so => /home/ydirson/bigloo-2.6d-32-O1-g/lib/2.6d/libbigloobdl_s-2.6d.so (0x4001d000)
        libbigloo_s-2.6d.so => /home/ydirson/bigloo-2.6d-32-O1-g/lib/2.6d/libbigloo_s-2.6d.so (0x40054000)
        libbigloogc-2.6d.so => /home/ydirson/bigloo-2.6d-32-O1-g/lib/2.6d/libbigloogc-2.6d.so (0x401ce000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x401fe000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x40208000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40282000)
        libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x403a7000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
/usr/bin/ldd: line 1: 31549 Segmentation fault      LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS=1 LD_WARN=yes LD_BIND_NOW=yes LD_VERBOSE= "$file"


Could that be a ld.so issue, maybe triggered by unexpected things in ELF
headers ?


On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:04:56AM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:34:36AM +0200, I wrote:
> > I'll try to build at -O0, and then at -O1 if -O0 worked, and will let you
> > know.  I should also have a closer look at how gcc-3.2 performs, but that
> > would be a pain to have to use it, since it's supposed to be phased out from
> > Debian...
> 
> Here is my status of the issue:
> 
> - the problem still exists with "gcc-3.3 -O0"
> - a diff of an ARM build tree against an i386 one shows no difference
> (appart from comments and strings showing setup information)
> 
> 
> The 1st point rules out a possible bug in a gcc optimisation; the 2nd one
> rules out possible problems impacting the scheme->C part of the bigloo
> compiler's job.
> 
> Unless I miss something, that leaves us with the following possibilities:
> 
> - problem in the bigloo executable after C generation (I don't know enough
> here to rule out this possibility, but intuitively I don't give it much
> weight)
> 
> - generated C code has arm-specific portability issues - Philip mentionned
> structure alignment as a common problem
> 
> - gcc-3.[34] at least has a non-optim-related arm-specific bug
> 
> 
> Next step: I've launched a build with --cflags=-g --coflags=-O1 and will try
> to pinpoint the precise problem.  Stay tuned.
> 
> -- 
> Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
> Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
> Pro:    <yann.dirson@fr.alcove.com> |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
>      http://ydirson.free.fr/        | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

-- 
Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
                                    |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
     http://ydirson.free.fr/        | Check <http://www.debian.org/>



Reply to: