* bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called [not found] <152796556058.30262.13172727695488534983.reportbug@tatooine> @ 2018-06-10 17:32 ` Rob Browning 2018-06-16 22:07 ` Rob Browning 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Rob Browning @ 2018-06-10 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 31776; +Cc: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, 900652, 900652-forwarded 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called 2018-06-10 17:32 ` bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called Rob Browning @ 2018-06-16 22:07 ` Rob Browning 2018-07-19 16:16 ` Rob Browning [not found] ` <878t67td3t.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Rob Browning @ 2018-06-16 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 31776; +Cc: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, 900652, 900652-forwarded 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called 2018-06-16 22:07 ` Rob Browning @ 2018-07-19 16:16 ` Rob Browning [not found] ` <878t67td3t.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Rob Browning @ 2018-07-19 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 31776; +Cc: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, 900652, 900652-forwarded, guile-devel 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <878t67td3t.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org>]
* bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called [not found] ` <878t67td3t.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> @ 2018-08-06 13:20 ` Göran Weinholt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Göran Weinholt @ 2018-08-06 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Browning; +Cc: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, 900652-forwarded, guile-devel, 31776 [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-08-06 13:20 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <152796556058.30262.13172727695488534983.reportbug@tatooine> 2018-06-10 17:32 ` bug#31776: guile-2.2: FTBFS on armhf: FAIL: gc.test: gc: after-gc-hook gets called Rob Browning 2018-06-16 22:07 ` Rob Browning 2018-07-19 16:16 ` Rob Browning [not found] ` <878t67td3t.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> 2018-08-06 13:20 ` Göran Weinholt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).