From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: guile-1.8.8 problem on GNU/Linux IA-64 and a simple fix Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:07:16 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295308982 1848 80.91.229.12 (18 Jan 2011 00:03:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:03:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 18 01:02:58 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pez28-0005A4-GR for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:02:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45099 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pez22-0006lx-0Z for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:02:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36010 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pez1t-0006lA-7X for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:02:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pez1r-00044I-RM for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:02:33 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:42702 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pez1r-00044C-NO for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:02:31 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B9B3536; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:03:15 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=rqtYuvdSccwm0U5rcLBuxFrF/A8=; b=c4/fr9 WRog7blkIPNkCPASh30nkRvgoZeruQnxgkHG9Ld6a678ipSyj2ZSnydwwIACcR9p BMUseRJJV/6x3LZN7RO3kheu4/D24l6eWwla1n5lGKRYvPKBmjInCEZPJCh3Ubl7 s4bS3ppVG3gCb01beXqSL3Vy9oithDYdAFA90= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Zyzo2zklWPuf9Xc9vMCjpxd6S8LSeV/e 6dMAx6JgTtIyPdlHla4oE9p5646h7lPGiAeAAmUN84NcLO/tSjiUBruR8Yao9pn7 aEctG3zN87geHyUK9A9cAwcSTVE1zRShKyEzJagoVvKfJGMTm/AakO05NM3tJMXj lJQrBfsQKWk= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276333535; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:03:14 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [65.14.229.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA7513534; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:03:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Nelson H. F. Beebe's message of "Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:03:20 -0700 (MST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 583235BE-2296-11E0-AD06-BC4EF3E828EC-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:4971 Archived-At: On Thu 16 Dec 2010 17:03, "Nelson H. F. Beebe" writes: > Running time.test > /bin/sh: line 5: 26260 Segmentation fault ${dir}$tst > FAIL: check-guile > ================================== > 1 of 1 test failed > Please report to bug-guile@gnu.org > ================================== > > On a hunch, I tried this: > > % limit stacksize 100M Are you building with -O2 or O0? AFAIK, the whole 1.8 branch has bad stack behavior with -O0... However, as IA-64 is an uncommon platform, and 2.0 will be out soon (which AFAIK does not exhibit this problem), I would be inclined to let search engines pick up the workaround from these mails. Let us know if there is something else we should do. Thanks for the report, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/