From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Neil Jerram" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: guile-1.8.5 test failures Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:57:25 +0100 Message-ID: <49dd78620810061557t5e79f8ccp97a68562cdc47cae@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080529214535.GA513@tw.il.thewrittenword.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1223333864 26257 80.91.229.12 (6 Oct 2008 22:57:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 22:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org, pogma@thewrittenword.com To: "Peter O'Gorman" Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 07 00:58:41 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Kmz2F-0005A2-Uf for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:58:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50279 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kmz1C-0000zs-7x for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:57:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kmz18-0000zJ-IM for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:57:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kmz16-0000yZ-0j for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:57:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37794 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kmz15-0000yW-Sd for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:57:27 -0400 Original-Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.243]:22372) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kmz15-00020g-D1 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:57:27 -0400 Original-Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so3564592rvb.6 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=oKW1QAngTexD1AwN+DCZF1hcdOOAO/b6kSyQH8N/8ks=; b=B7yFms8K4npxE0IM7gk4K7bodAURlCDpvDTul5DzKasui1S1eQmF0AFKQOO/ibhqWF Lm4NtAy/y2/rj2Y9JMk/AuUCnw2rd6XkhQL66K5wle4Ma98JAHh/6E6yiTZxVLZQz4qF u1XHLwyyQzFQ4ChRLrkM977L58xPErJeVifFs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=RHBSa0LxFe4mjw2mSavTLFZUVxLvc4rEDm/DcJZ5OrqFU4r+c3wfZk42BgiHXYk7Ho id4F5gzgyjxwnDlJCWKgtjrOsB+8Lo7c7I4HvoZ7F9wtzirCIkjwg8/ZO3SKt+ExXgY5 E6PYDAK0nukPbncp1OdIW5PUUBkht7NPIsvDA= Original-Received: by 10.141.211.13 with SMTP id n13mr3445502rvq.12.1223333845323; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.140.142.15 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080529214535.GA513@tw.il.thewrittenword.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:4036 Archived-At: 2008/5/29 Peter O'Gorman : > > We built guile-1.8.5 on multiple machines with the native compilers and > these patches: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2008-05/msg00020.html > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2008-05/msg00017.html > (attached patch) > For ia64-hpux the situation is not quite that good. With all three > patches applied guile builds, but the tests go like this: ... > ERROR: Stack overflow > FAIL: test-num2integral ... > ERROR: Stack overflow > FAIL: test-asmobs ... > ERROR: Stack overflow > FAIL: test-conversion > ERROR: Stack overflow > ABORT: (stack-overflow) ... > Running alist.test > ERROR: Stack overflow > FAIL: check-guile > Without the stack size or ia64 patches applied, the results are similar > to Tru64: > > PASS: test-system-cmds > PASS: test-require-extension > PASS: test-bad-identifiers > PASS: test-num2integral > PASS: test-round > PASS: test-gh > PASS: test-asmobs > PASS: test-list So on this platform (ia64-hpux), it looks like the stack calibration patch causes the stack overflows. I imagine that could happen if (1) the calibration Scheme code in boot-9.scm consumed little or no stack - perhaps because of the compiler having lots of registers available, and/or doing tail call frame elimination (that probably isn't the right term for it, but hopefully it's clear what I mean!) - and (2) the real C/Scheme code that runs later uses on average much more stack per frame. In another thread, Ludovic measured a value of 0.07 for the calibrated m value on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu: > * ia64-unknown-linux-gnu (itanium2), GCC 4.1.2 > ;; Stack calibration: (x1 x2 y1 y2 m c) = (170 690 10 50 0.0769230769230769 -3.07692307692308) This means that calibration reduces the maximum allowed stack depth from 20000 to 1400 words. If you still have the build around, and could run ./pre-inst-guile -q with it, that should output a ";; Stack calibration" line like the one above, and would allow us to confirm (or deny) that the calibrated m value was very low. Regards, Neil