From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#31777: guile-2.2 FTCBFS for mipsel: In procedure load-thunk-from-memory: No such file or directory Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 15:10:19 -0500 Message-ID: <87vaaqpfmc.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> References: <20180527152301.GA23270@alf.mars> <87sh6czwys.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <20180528040202.GA19575@alf.mars> <87h8mrzjjf.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <20180528200534.GA30142@alf.mars> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1528661350 3942 195.159.176.226 (10 Jun 2018 20:09:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Helmut Grohne , 900203@bugs.debian.org, 900203-forwarded@bugs.debian.org To: 31777@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 10 22:09:06 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6e8-0000tk-Ru for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 22:09:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45125 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6gD-0008WD-VM for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:11:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43418) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6g5-0008W0-N9 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:11:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6g2-0002lf-FL for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:11:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34673) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6g2-0002lR-9p for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:11:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6g2-0003EO-1Y for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:11:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Rob Browning Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:11:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 31777 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guile@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.152866143512378 (code B ref -1); Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:11:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jun 2018 20:10:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42570 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6fa-0003Da-NP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:10:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52358) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6fY-0003DM-NZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:10:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6fS-0002SA-8m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:10:27 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:42618) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6fR-0002Ru-Vc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:10:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43329) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6fQ-0008SA-NE for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:10:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6fN-0002QC-6f for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:10:24 -0400 Original-Received: from defaultvalue.org ([45.33.119.55]:53742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fS6fM-0002Pm-Um for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:10:21 -0400 Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: rlb@defaultvalue.org) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFFCB2009F; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 15:10:19 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5172914E550; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 15:10:19 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <20180528200534.GA30142@alf.mars> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-guile" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:9058 Archived-At: [If possible, please preserve the 900203-forwarded address in replies] We're currently unable to cross-build guile 2.2 on all of the debian release architectures, which is important given that through make, etc., guile's now part of the core bootstrap set for new architectures. You can see additional information here https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=900203 and I have been able to reproduce the failure on a debian buster (testing) amd64 host by adding armhf as root: # dpkg --add-architecture armhf # apt build-dep -t buster guile-2.2 # apt install -t buster \ fakeroot \ dpkg-dev \ binutils:armhf \ crossbuild-essential-armhf \ gcc-arm-linux-gnueabihf \ libc-dev:armhf libncurses5-dev:armhf and then building the package as not-root: $ apt source guile-2.2=2.2.3+1-4 $ cd guile-2.2-2.2.3+1 $ DEB_BUILD_PROFILES="cross nocheck" \ DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=2 nocheck" \ fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage -B --host-arch=armhf ...which fails with the same error reported in the debian bug: guild compile --target="arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf" -Wunbound-variable -Wmacro-use-before-definition -Warity-mismatch -Wformat \ -L "/home/rlb/deb/guile/main/module" -L "/home/rlb/deb/guile/main/module" \ -L "/home/rlb/deb/guile/main/guile-readline" \ --from=elisp -o "language/elisp/boot.go" "language/elisp/boot.el" Backtrace: In srfi/srfi-1.scm: 640:9 19 (for-each # ?) In scripts/compile.scm: 251:26 18 (_ _) In system/base/target.scm: 57:6 17 (with-target _ _) In system/base/compile.scm: 139:28 16 (compile-file "language/elisp/boot.el" #:output-file _ # ?) In system/base/language.scm: 110:30 15 (default-environment _) 62:11 14 (lookup-language elisp) In ice-9/boot-9.scm: 2714:10 13 (_ (language elisp spec) _ _ #:ensure _) 2982:16 12 (try-module-autoload _ _) 2312:4 11 (save-module-excursion _) 3002:22 10 (_) In unknown file: 9 (primitive-load-path "language/elisp/spec" #) In system/base/compile.scm: 165:4 8 (compile-and-load _ #:from _ #:to _ #:env _ #:opts _ # _) 235:18 7 (read-and-compile # # ?) 183:32 6 (compile-fold (#) ?) In language/elisp/compile-tree-il.scm: 805:5 5 (compile-tree-il (defmacro @ (module symbol) (#{`}# ?)) ?) 705:11 4 (_ _ _) In system/base/compile.scm: 255:6 3 (compile _ #:from _ #:to _ #:env _ #:opts _) 183:32 2 (compile-fold _ # ?) In language/bytecode/spec.scm: 28:15 1 (bytecode->value #vu8(127 69 76 70 1 1 1 255 0 0 0 0 ?) ?) In unknown file: 0 (load-thunk-from-memory #vu8(127 69 76 70 1 1 1 255 0 ?)) ERROR: In procedure load-thunk-from-memory: In procedure load-thunk-from-memory: No such file or directory Makefile:2267: recipe for target 'language/elisp/boot.go' failed Please let me know if I can help test anything further, and note that it appears possible that the the architecture may be relevant, i.e. from the debian bug: Helmut Grohne writes: > Initially, I thought the failure was 100% reproducible for any > architecture. That doesn't seem to be the case. Let me try building > guile-2.2 for most release architecture with sbuild: > > arm64: successful > armel: ftcbfs, ftcbfs > armhf: ftcbfs, ftcbfs > mips: multiarch skew linux-libc-dev > mips64el: successful > mipsel: multiarch skew linux-libc-dev > powerpc: ftcbfs, ftcbfs > ppc64el: successful > s390x: ftcbfs > > I ran each ftcbfs build twice to rule out the possibility of a random > ftcbfs. So we have a non-random ftcbfs for some architectures. I'm a bit > surprised about s390x here as it is the only failing 64bit architecture. 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