Re: hppa ocaml build failure :(((
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0600, LaMont Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, but now we have the hppa autobuilder maintainer looking at it
> > (hopefully) so we will know more about it. I CC him on this mail, so he
> > will know about your experience.
>
> Hrmpf... I disabled unaligned-trap handling on the autobuilder, figuring
> that would just result in a nice failure for us to trace - the result is
> that ocaml_3.07-6 is now installed.
Cool, but i suppose this means the problem is not really solved, right ?
> FWIW, the issue here is that (I believe and so assert) that there is a race
> condition in the printk path that is almost never hit, so we've never tracked
> it down. The unaligned handler does somewhat throttled printks (They're
> only throttled within the process, running another one will keep them
> coming.) With as many as ocaml's build was generating, I expect that was
> why the system was crashing.
So a kernel issue ?
> If we make the leap and assume that ocaml is not generating hppa assembly,
> then my bet would have to go to setjmp being called with a non-aligned
> buffer. (hppa needs 16 byte alignment...)
That feels strange, since on hppa, only the bytecode compiler is
available, and the bytecode stuff, to the best of my knowledge, has
everything 32bit aligned. ... Mmm, you are speaking about 16 byte (as in
16 x 8 = 128 bit alignement ?). I will investigate with upstream for
this. Is this only for floats, or for everything ?
Also, if there needs to be a change in ocaml, would it be possible to
have an account for upstream on a hppa box so he can track (and fix) the
issue ?
> But again, it seems to be working now, at least on machines that raise SIGBUS
> on unaligned loads/stores.
Ok, but may be broken again in the future, best would be to solve this
for in ocaml if possible.
Friendly,
Svne Luther
Reply to: