Hello, On Tue 09 Aug 2022 at 07:46AM +02, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On 09-08-2022 05:08, Sean Whitton wrote: >> It looks like Lisp just ran out of memory. > > Yes, but it does so systematically. > >> Indeed, I can't see this >> failure on debci.debian.org at present, > > Huh? Did you check https://ci.debian.net/packages/c/cl-ironclad/testing/armhf/ > or https://ci.debian.net/packages/c/cl-ironclad/testing/armel/ You'll see > there that cl-ironclad was retried with sbcl about 11 + 10 times and every > time it failed (and never succeeded). > >> which makes sense if it's a >> random OOM problem on weaker architectures like armhf -- so, not the >> fault of the new sbcl upload. > > This isn't random. And, our armhf box has 255 GB of RAM (and armel VM has 26 > GB), so running out of memory isn't likely. What can happen is that threads > use too much resources for the address space, but that's something under > control of the packages in question if I'm correct (but please correct me if I > misunderstand). I'm not saying it's (easily) fixable, just that it > systematically runs out of reachable memory during the particular test. Right, it's not random. I was looking at the page for unstable. I first looked at <https://ci.debian.net/packages/c/cl-ironclad/> and the failure doesn't show up there -- do you know what that would be? Then I clicked on unstable but not testing, it would seem. I'll write to upstream about this. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature