Re: Bug#1017961: mozjs102: Fails to build on armel
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 21:42:29 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1786619
Upstream suggested that I should also turn off the JIT (see patch
attached to the upstream bug), but that doesn't seem to have helped with
the test failures. The test suite is segfaulting in most tests in the
Atomics/*/bigint family:
## test262/built-ins/Atomics/xor/bigint/good-views.js: rc = -11, run time = 0.030321
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | test262/built-ins/Atomics/xor/bigint/good-views.js | (args: "") [0.0 s]
## test262/built-ins/Atomics/xor/bigint/non-shared-bufferdata.js: rc = -11, run time = 0.038158
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | test262/built-ins/Atomics/xor/bigint/non-shared-bufferdata.js | (args: "") [0.0 s]
## test262/built-ins/Atomics/or/bigint/good-views.js: rc = -11, run time = 0.038281
(etc.)
and there is also a non-segfault test failure:
## test262/built-ins/Atomics/compareExchange/good-views.js: rc = 3, run time = 0.03819
/home/smcv/mozjs-armel/js/src/tests/test262/built-ins/Atomics/shell.js:188:7 uncaught exception: Test262Error: The value of view[3] is 0 Expected SameValue(«-5», «0») to be true (Testing with Int16Array.)
Stack:
testWithTypedArrayConstructors@/home/smcv/mozjs-armel/js/src/tests/test262/built-ins/Atomics/shell.js:188:7
@/home/smcv/mozjs-armel/js/src/tests/test262/built-ins/Atomics/compareExchange/good-views.js:16:31
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | test262/built-ins/Atomics/compareExchange/good-views.js | (args: "") [0.0 s]
I don't have a good picture of where this puts us on a scale from "it's
basically fine" to "armel users will report grave bugs in gjs-based
packages whenever they try to run them, because they're hopelessly
crashy". Does anyone have a better idea of whether these test failures
are ignorable or RC? I don't want to end up in a situation where the
GNOME team is responsible for fixing atomic ops that we don't understand,
on machines that can't run GNOME and are unsupported by upstream, under
the threat of having GNOME removed from Debian if we can't.
I'm doing all this remotely on a porterbox, because my only armel
machine was de-supported in Debian 11 due to kernel size issues and
is headless anyway, so I can't run practical gjs apps on armel myself
(and in any case it would take hours if not days to compile mozjs on
actually-armel hardware).
As another possible route, I've opened a release team bug inquiring about
architecture-specific removals of gjs and rdeps from armel (#1018076).
smcv
Reply to: