From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: stack overflow Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:34:04 +0200 Message-ID: <87mykihutf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <47B2A8DF.9070004@tammer.net> <87tzkd8bvz.fsf@gnu.org> <87ejbh8ben.fsf@gnu.org> <47B2D88F.1040505@tammer.net> <87ir0tvx6e.fsf@inria.fr> <87wsp83807.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <871w7fore8.fsf@gnu.org> <66e540fe0802140226k3cd96c46x286ac753bbb2b8b7@mail.gmail.com> <87ejbfg4pr.fsf@gnu.org> <66e540fe0802140339n2121e1d9y85fcc9f019d8be0f@mail.gmail.com> <87prukog9w.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216211691 30243 80.91.229.12 (16 Jul 2008 12:34:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:34:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 16 14:35:39 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KJ6EG-0000g6-7Q for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:35:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56945 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KJ6DN-0001MF-Jj for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:34:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KJ6DJ-0001L9-P5 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:34:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KJ6DI-0001Kf-PW for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:34:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43106 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KJ6DI-0001KZ-MO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:34:32 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:48514 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KJ6DJ-0002hX-9j for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:34:33 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KJ6DG-0006FY-4X for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:34:30 +0000 Original-Received: from 193.50.110.187 ([193.50.110.187]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:34:30 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by 193.50.110.187 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:34:30 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Followup-To: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Original-Lines: 48 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.50.110.187 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 28 Messidor an 216 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:vcdkmM1Ft0DkaUJNhn0dPo6JqlE= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7386 gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:3931 Archived-At: Hi, Neil Jerram writes: > Below is a proposed patch to do this. When and if this gets deployed, > the third arg to %calibrate-stack-depth would be removed, so that it > doesn't generate any output. But for now it's interesting to see what > results people on various OSs get. > > Could people who've being getting "Stack overflow" errors try this > out, and also report (for interest) the ";; Stack calibration" line > that they get? I think time has come to integrate this patch as it's proved to fix things for various people. I tried it on several platforms, always compiling with the default flags, i.e., `-O2'. Here's what I got[*]: * i686-pc-linux-gnu, GCC 4.2.4 ;; Stack calibration: (x1 x2 y1 y2 m c) = (170 690 170 690 1.0 0.0) * x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GCC 4.1.2 ;; Stack calibration: (x1 x2 y1 y2 m c) = (170 690 41 181 0.269230769230769 -4.76923076923077) * sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu, GCC 4.1.3 ;; Stack calibration: (x1 x2 y1 y2 m c) = (170 690 178 498 0.615384615384615 73.3846153846154) * hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, HP92453-01 B.11.X.36086-36089-36092.GP HP C Compiler (cc) ;; Stack calibration: (x1 x2 y1 y2 m c) = (170 690 352 1472 2.15384615384615 -14.1538461538462) * 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) * i386-unknown-freebsd6.2, GCC 3.4.6 ;; Stack calibration: (x1 x2 y1 y2 m c) = (170 690 114 394 0.538461538461538 22.4615384615385) `pre-inst-guile' reaches the REPL in all cases, except on IA64 where it stack-overflows (further investigation needed). I'll comment the patch itself later on. Thanks, Ludovic. [*] I really need to find a way to automate this. If anyone knows of existing tools that would facilitate it (connecting to each machine, running `configure', `make', etc.), please let me know. Otherwise, I guess it wouldn't be too hard to write a script to do that.