[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken 4.9.0rc1 fails test on OpenBSD 5.4

From: Mario Domenech Goulart
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken 4.9.0rc1 fails test on OpenBSD 5.4
Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 13:50:24 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)


On Sat, 3 May 2014 14:21:32 +0200 Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:44:07AM +0000, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
>> Thanks for reporting this issue.  I can reproduce it on OpenBSD/amd64
>> 5.4 with clang 3.3.  I can't reproduce it using gcc 4.2.1 on the same
>> platform.
> After some time wasted on attempting to get gdb to properly read
> clang-built binaries, I found the cause by adding another paranoid
> check :)
> The attached patch adds the paranoid check.  I don't think we should
> add it just yet, because this consistently causes the test to crash
> on any machine (AFAICT).  The reason it's failing is because the test
> which tries whether APPLY can properly detect when the apply limit is
> exceeded will cause a GC to happen.  When the GC happens, the arguments
> to the function are saved by C_save_rest(...).  Of course, the temporary
> stack is only big enough to hold the maximum number of accepted
> arguments for apply, in any case.  This means it will overflow the memory
> set aside for the stack.

Thanks a lot for looking into that, Peter.

>> I think this issue deserves some investigation before we release 4.9.0.
> I'm unsure how to fix this without overhauling the temp stack management,
> which I've been planning to do for #1098.  Perhaps we can disable the
> test for the moment?  Or just leave it as is because it only happens on
> one platform, and only intermittently (and the test is sort of useful).

I'd be for keeping that test, for the reasons you mention.

> This means we don't need to postpone the release any longer, IMHO.  Once
> we've decided what to do with this test, we can build a new tarball (with
> a manual this time!) and make the release.

Yeah, I think we are reasonably good -- despite this issue
(, which is not new, but just
discovered.  Unless someone come up with a trivial fix, I think we
should release 4.9.0 with this known issue and properly fix it in

I've compiled the reports we've got so far and put it at (thanks everybody!).
I think we've got a pretty good coverage.  Of course, if anybody has
anything else to report, it's certainly welcome.

Best wishes.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]