bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called

bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called

[Rob Browning]

It looks like gc.test may be failing intermittently in Debian (see below).
Searching around I saw at least one other report of this in the #guile
logs from last year.

For now, I'm wondering if if would be plausible to mark the test as
unresolved to avoid guile-2.2's removal from Debian testing, or if the
failure is likely to indicate a problem serious enough to warrant that
removal.

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> writes:

> Your package failed to build on armhf:
>
> Running gc.test
> FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called
> [...]
> Totals for this test run:
> passes:                 40732
> failures:               1
> unexpected passes:      0
> expected failures:      10
> unresolved test cases:  578
> untested test cases:    1
> unsupported test cases: 1
> errors:                 0
>
> FAIL: check-guile
> ==================================
> 1 of 1 test failed
>
>
> Full log at https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=guile-2.2

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> It looks like gc.test may be failing intermittently in Debian (see below).
> Searching around I saw at least one other report of this in the #guile
> logs from last year.
>
> For now, I'm wondering if if would be plausible to mark the test as
> unresolved to avoid guile-2.2's removal from Debian testing, or if the
> failure is likely to indicate a problem serious enough to warrant that
> removal.

Just wanted to check back about this.  It's caused a build on the buildds
to fail again.

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>
>> It looks like gc.test may be failing intermittently in Debian (see below).
>> Searching around I saw at least one other report of this in the #guile
>> logs from last year.
>>
>> For now, I'm wondering if if would be plausible to mark the test as
>> unresolved to avoid guile-2.2's removal from Debian testing, or if the
>> failure is likely to indicate a problem serious enough to warrant that
>> removal.
>
> Just wanted to check back about this.  It's caused a build on the buildds
> to fail again.

As an update, If we don't resolve this, guile-2.2 will be removed from
Debian testing this weekend.

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4

bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called

[Göran Weinholt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2012 bytes --]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>
>> Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
>>
>>> It looks like gc.test may be failing intermittently in Debian (see below).
>>> Searching around I saw at least one other report of this in the #guile
>>> logs from last year.
>>>
>>> For now, I'm wondering if if would be plausible to mark the test as
>>> unresolved to avoid guile-2.2's removal from Debian testing, or if the
>>> failure is likely to indicate a problem serious enough to warrant that
>>> removal.
>>
>> Just wanted to check back about this.  It's caused a build on the buildds
>> to fail again.
>
> As an update, If we don't resolve this, guile-2.2 will be removed from
> Debian testing this weekend.

Hello Rob,

The test fails with 2.2.4+1-1 on amd64 as well:

https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/guile-2.2.html

It's really tricky to get it to fail predictably, but you can even your
odds by testing only asyncs.test and gc.test:

 apt-get source guile-2.2
 cd guile-2.2-2.2.4+1
 dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
 mkdir test-suite/async-tests
 cp test-suite/tests/{asyncs,gc}.test test-suite/async-tests/
 meta/guile --debug -L $PWD/test-suite --no-auto-compile \
   -e main -s $PWD/test-suite/guile-test \
   --test-suite $PWD/test-suite/async-tests \
   --log-file check-guile-async.log

Try the last command around a dozen times and it'll fail eventually.

I didn't get further with debugging than determining that something
probably goes wrong in the interaction between queue_after_gc_hook(),
scm_i_async_push() and scm_i_async_pop(). Every time there was a
failure, this condition was false (the cdr was set to empty list):

  if (scm_is_false (SCM_CDR (after_gc_async_cell)))
    {
      SCM_SETCDR (after_gc_async_cell, t->pending_asyncs);
      t->pending_asyncs = after_gc_async_cell;
    }

Regards,

-- 
Göran Weinholt
Debian developer
73 de SA6CJK

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]