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

Re: [DRE-maint] Bug#642266: please help with #642266

Hi Jurij,

Jurij Smakov escreveu isso aí:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 10:54:07AM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Dear sparc porters,
> > 
> > I need some help from you to make ruby-ffi build correctly on sparc.
> > The source actually compiles OK, but the test suite crashes with an
> > "Illegal instruction" error. Is this a known problem?
> > 
> > I managed to create a minimal test script that reproduces the problem
> > without running the entire test suite. It is attached to this bug
> > report (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=642266), and
> > all you need to do is run it from the root of the package source dir (it
> > will compile everything that's needed before running the actual test
> > code).
> > 
> > I also attached strace output from running the test script against both
> > ruby1.8 and ruby1.9.1 (a second run, after having the C code built to
> > remove unecessary cruft): they have similar results.
> We used to have a bug in gcc-4.6 on sparc, which resulted in 
> miscompilation of pack/unpack function in Ruby:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=635126
> The fact that your test case causes a failure in pack-related function 
> makes me think that this might be the same problem. Last ruby-ffi 
> package has been built with gcc-4.6 4.6.2-4, according to
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ruby-ffi&arch=sparc&ver=1.0.11debian-2&stamp=1325143302
> The first gcc-4.6 version containing a fix is 4.6.2-6, so the build 
> still happened with broken gcc. If you can, try either building 
> the code with older compiler and -fno-tree-sra flag, or newer 
> compiler, to see whether this fixes the problem. I'm on vacation for 
> another week and don't have access to my sparc box, so if you will not 
> be able to confirm this fix, I'll be glad to give it a go once I'm 
> back.

I've just tested on smetana.debian.org (where those strace logs
were obtained before), and the gcc there is way newer than that:

gcc       4:4.6.2-4
gcc-4.6   4.6.2-11

I also tried building with -fno-tree-sra, but got the same results. So,
it would be very nice if you could look at this issue.

Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: