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

Re: Bug#419892: cduce_0.4.1-1+b1(ia64/unstable): FTBFS: SEGV runing ./cduce



On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 08:27:40 -0600, lamont@debian.org wrote:

> Package: cduce
> Version: 0.4.1-1+b1
> Severity: serious
> 
> There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> 
> > Automatic build of cduce_0.4.1-1+b1 on caballero by sbuild/ia64 98
> > Build started at 20070418-1208
> 
> [...]
> 
> > ** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
> > Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4.0.0), ocaml-nox (>= 3.09.2), ocaml-source (>= 3.09.2), libpcre-ocaml-dev (>= 5.11.1), libocamlnet-ocaml-dev (>= 1.1), libexpat-ocaml-dev (>= 0.9.1), libcurl-ocaml-dev (>= 0.2.1), ocaml-ulex, dpatch, chrpath, bzip2
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 	ocamlc -for-pack Cduce_lib -pack -o caml_cduce.cmo config.cmo misc.cmo tbl.cmo clflags.cmo consistbl.cmo warnings.cmo terminfo.cmo location.cmo asttypes.cmo longident.cmo ident.cmo path.cmo primitive.cmo types.cmo btype.cmo oprint.cmo subst.cmo predef.cmo datarepr.cmo env.cmo ctype.cmo printtyp.cmo; \
> > 	cp caml_cduce.cmo caml_cduce.cmi ..)
> > make[3]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/cduce-0.4.1/ocamliface'
> > Build ocamliface/mltypes.cmo
> > Build ocamliface/mlstub.cmo
> > Build parser/cduce_curl.cmo
> > Build runtime/cduce_expat.cmo
> > Build driver/run.cmo
> > Pack cduce_lib.cmo
> > Build cduce_lib.cma
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/cduce-0.4.1'
> > ./cduce -I web/ --compile web/xhtml.cd
> > make[1]: *** [web/xhtml.cdo] Segmentation fault
> > make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/cduce-0.4.1'
> > make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2
> 
> A full build log can be found at:
> http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=ia64&pkg=cduce&ver=0.4.1-1+b1
> 
Hi,

Has anyone tried to find out what's going on here (or workaround it)?
It looks like cduce is being built with ocamlopt, which has a code
generation bug on ia64, so hopefully building cduce with ocamlc would
fix it.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: