Bug#551188: "libgomp: Thread creation failed" after stack size limit increase
tag 551188 + unreproducible
thanks
Hi!
I can't reproduce your bug. Does it still occur, and if yes, have you
tried on an other machine?
Thanks!
Arthur.
2009/10/16, Delian Krustev <krustev@krustev.net>:
> Package: libgomp1
> Version: 4.4.1-4
> Severity: normal
>
> $ ulimit -a > pre
> $ convert -geometry 90x68 -quality 100 city.jpg city_thumb.jpg
> $ echo $?
> 0
> $ ulimit -s 195312
> $ convert -geometry 90x68 -quality 100 city.jpg city_thumb.jpg
>
> libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable
> $ echo $?
> 1
> $ ulimit -a > after
> $ diff -u pre after
> --- pre 2009-10-16 15:02:46.000000000 +0300
> +++ after 2009-10-16 15:02:39.000000000 +0300
> @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@
> pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8
> POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200
> real-time priority (-r) 0
> -stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192
> +stack size (kbytes, -s) 195312
> cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
> max user processes (-u) unlimited
> virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited
> file locks (-x) unlimited
>
> It appears that libgomp fails with higher stack size limitations.
>
> The bug might also be in how convert uses the library, but it seems more
> likely to be in libgomp.
>
> Package: imagemagick
> Version: 7:6.5.5.3-1
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: squeeze/sid
> APT prefers testing
> APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (900, 'stable'), (800, 'unstable')
> Architecture: i386 (i686)
>
> Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-1-686-bigmem (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
>
> Versions of packages libgomp1 depends on:
> ii gcc-4.4-base 4.4.1-4 The GNU Compiler Collection
> (base
> ii libc6 2.9-25 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
>
> libgomp1 recommends no packages.
>
> libgomp1 suggests no packages.
>
> -- no debconf information
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: