GNU bug report logs -
#10681
GNU Guile 2.0.5 released
Previous Next
Reported by: Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:23:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Andy Wingo <wingo <at> pobox.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 10681 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 10681 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:23:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:23:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 30 Jan 2012, at 23:02, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> We are pleased to announce GNU Guile release 2.0.5.
The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
PASS: test-asmobs
bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
/bin/sh: line 1: 96687 Bus error: 10 srcdir="." builddir="." CHARSETALIASDIR="/usr/local/src/guile/guile-2.0.5/lib" GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 "../../meta/uninstalled-env" ${dir}$tst
...
==================================
1 of 28 tests failed
Please report to bug-guile <at> gnu.org
==================================
Done.
Hans
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:41:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30122
--
http://wingolog.org/
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:06:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 31 Jan 2012, at 15:40, Andy Wingo wrote:
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30122
I used /usr/bin/gcc -> llvm-gcc-4.2, which is different from clang.
There is also this one
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guile/2011-11/msg00026.html
It asks for this output:
$ grep scm_t_int8 libguile/scmconfig.h
typedef int8_t scm_t_int8;
It is the same with gcc-4.7.0.
Hans
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:20:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Hans,
Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> skribis:
> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
What is this? Apple’s GCC? DragonEgg?
FWIW, this problem doesn’t show up on
<http://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/gnu/guile-2-0/>, which uses Apple’s GCC
4.2.1 on x86_64-apple-darwin10.2.0.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:01:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 31 Jan 2012, at 16:18, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>
> What is this? Apple’s GCC? DragonEgg?
On OS X 10.7.2, Xcode 4.2 installs two system compilers
/usr/bin/clang
/usr/bin/gcc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
/usr/bin/cc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
It is the latter, because that is one gets hold of without 'export CC=...'.
> FWIW, this problem doesn’t show up on
> <http://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/gnu/guile-2-0/>, which uses Apple’s GCC
> 4.2.1 on x86_64-apple-darwin10.2.0.
I get another error with gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 (from SVN, installed in /usr/local/bin/gcc):
PASS: test-asmobs
/bin/sh: line 1: 33654 Bus error: 10 srcdir="." builddir="." CHARSETALIASDIR="/usr/local/src/guile/gcc-4.7/guile-2.0.5/lib" GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=0 "../../meta/uninstalled-env" ${dir}$tst
FAIL: test-ffi
PASS: test-list
...
==================================
1 of 28 tests failed
Please report to bug-guile <at> gnu.org
==================================
So the f-sum error seems to have to do with llvm-gcc (and possibly clang).
In both cases, the failure is
FAIL: test-ffi
Hans
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:07:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler
> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>
> PASS: test-asmobs
> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
I may be stating the obvious here, but the -1, which is declared to be
of type 'scm_t_int8' in the C function being called, is apparently being
interpreted as 255. This suggests that whatever is handling its
promotion to a full int is failing to extend its sign bit. I'm guessing
that this is libffi's job.
Hans: can you please verify that your libffi's 'make check' passes all
tests on your platform? If it passes, and if this ends up being a
different build of 'libffi' than you were previously using, it would be
helpful if you could install the newly-built 'libffi', then do a fresh
rebuild of Guile 2.0.5 and see if that fixes the problem.
Thanks,
Mark
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:31:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:04, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler
>> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>>
>> PASS: test-asmobs
>> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
>
> I may be stating the obvious here, but the -1, which is declared to be
> of type 'scm_t_int8' in the C function being called, is apparently being
> interpreted as 255. This suggests that whatever is handling its
> promotion to a full int is failing to extend its sign bit. I'm guessing
> that this is libffi's job.
It is broken (libffi from GIT, the only that works on OX 10.7):
$ make check
Making check in include
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
Making check in testsuite
make check-DEJAGNU
srcdir=`CDPATH="${ZSH_VERSION+.}:" && cd ../../libffi/testsuite && pwd`; export srcdir; \
EXPECT=`if [ -f ../../expect/expect ] ; then echo ../../expect/expect ; else echo expect ; fi`; export EXPECT; \
runtest=`if [ -f ../../libffi/../dejagnu/runtest ] ; then echo ../../libffi/../dejagnu/runtest ; else echo runtest; fi`; \
if /bin/sh -c "$runtest --version" > /dev/null 2>&1; then \
exit_status=0; l='libffi'; for tool in $l; do \
if $runtest --tool $tool --srcdir $srcdir ; \
then :; else exit_status=1; fi; \
done; \
else echo "WARNING: could not find \`runtest'" 1>&2; :;\
fi; \
exit $exit_status
WARNING: could not find `runtest'
Making check in man
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check-am'
> Hans: can you please verify that your libffi's 'make check' passes all
> tests on your platform? If it passes, and if this ends up being a
> different build of 'libffi' than you were previously using, it would be
> helpful if you could install the newly-built 'libffi', then do a fresh
> rebuild of Guile 2.0.5 and see if that fixes the problem.
I have installed the newly built libffi, but rebuilding guile takes a lot of time.
Hans
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:37:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:04, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>
>>> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler
>>> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>>>
>>> PASS: test-asmobs
>>> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
>>
>> I may be stating the obvious here, but the -1, which is declared to be
>> of type 'scm_t_int8' in the C function being called, is apparently being
>> interpreted as 255. This suggests that whatever is handling its
>> promotion to a full int is failing to extend its sign bit. I'm guessing
>> that this is libffi's job.
>
> It is broken (libffi from GIT, the only that works on OX 10.7):
You need to install DejaGnu in order to run libffi's test suite.
<http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/>
Thanks,
Mark
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:43:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #29 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 31 Jan 2012, at 20:35, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>>> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler
>>>> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>>>>
>>>> PASS: test-asmobs
>>>> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
>>>
>>> I may be stating the obvious here, but the -1, which is declared to be
>>> of type 'scm_t_int8' in the C function being called, is apparently being
>>> interpreted as 255. This suggests that whatever is handling its
>>> promotion to a full int is failing to extend its sign bit. I'm guessing
>>> that this is libffi's job.
>>
>> It is broken (libffi from GIT, the only that works on OX 10.7):
>
> You need to install DejaGnu in order to run libffi's test suite.
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/>
OK. I am rebuilding Guile. Stay tuned.
Hans
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:03:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #32 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 31 Jan 2012, at 20:35, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>>> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler
>>>> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>>>>
>>>> PASS: test-asmobs
>>>> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
>>>
>>> I may be stating the obvious here, but the -1, which is declared to be
>>> of type 'scm_t_int8' in the C function being called, is apparently being
>>> interpreted as 255. This suggests that whatever is handling its
>>> promotion to a full int is failing to extend its sign bit. I'm guessing
>>> that this is libffi's job.
>>
>> It is broken (libffi from GIT, the only that works on OX 10.7):
>
> You need to install DejaGnu in order to run libffi's test suite.
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/>
It seem they passed (not giving any details).
Hans
Test Run on Tue Jan 31 20:51:33 2012
Native configuration is x86_64-apple-darwin11.2.0
=== libffi tests ===
Schedule of variations:
unix
Running target unix
Using /usr/local/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for target.
Using /usr/local/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /usr/local/src/libffi/git/libffi/testsuite/config/default.exp as tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /usr/local/src/libffi/git/libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/call.exp ...
Running /usr/local/src/libffi/git/libffi/testsuite/libffi.special/special.exp ...
=== libffi Summary ===
# of expected passes 1659
# of unsupported tests 15
Making check in man
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check-am'.
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:04:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #35 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 31 Jan 2012, at 20:35, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>>> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler
>>>> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>>>>
>>>> PASS: test-asmobs
>>>> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
>>>
>>> I may be stating the obvious here, but the -1, which is declared to be
>>> of type 'scm_t_int8' in the C function being called, is apparently being
>>> interpreted as 255. This suggests that whatever is handling its
>>> promotion to a full int is failing to extend its sign bit. I'm guessing
>>> that this is libffi's job.
>>
>> It is broken (libffi from GIT, the only that works on OX 10.7):
>
> You need to install DejaGnu in order to run libffi's test suite.
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/>
With gcc-4.7.0 (from SVN), the test-ffi test now passes (libffi from GIT), but I get three other failures.
The compiler that is normally used on the system, is llvm-gcc-4.2, and its compile is still running.
Hans
Running bytevectors.test
FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (eval)
FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (compile)
...
Running gc.test
FAIL: gc.test: gc: Unused modules are removed
...
Totals for this test run:
passes: 34886
failures: 3
unexpected passes: 0
expected failures: 30
unresolved test cases: 29
untested test cases: 1
unsupported test cases: 9
errors: 0
FAIL: check-guile
==================================
1 of 1 test failed
Please report to bug-guile <at> gnu.org
==================================
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:35:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #38 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 31 Jan 2012, at 20:35, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>>> The 'make check' gives this error, on OS X 10.7.2 using the compiler
>>>> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 supplied by Xcode 4.2.1:
>>>>
>>>> PASS: test-asmobs
>>>> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
>>>
>>> I may be stating the obvious here, but the -1, which is declared to be
>>> of type 'scm_t_int8' in the C function being called, is apparently being
>>> interpreted as 255. This suggests that whatever is handling its
>>> promotion to a full int is failing to extend its sign bit. I'm guessing
>>> that this is libffi's job.
>>
>> It is broken (libffi from GIT, the only that works on OX 10.7):
>
> You need to install DejaGnu in order to run libffi's test suite.
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/>
After doing this, the same failure with the LLVM-GCC compiler:
/usr/bin/cc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
/usr/bin/gcc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1
This is the compiler that one will use on OS X 10.7 if one installs Xcode 4.2.1, and is not setting the compiler explicitly (or overriding by another install).
Hans
PASS: test-asmobs
bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
FAIL: test-ffi
...
==================================
1 of 28 tests failed
Please report to bug-guile <at> gnu.org
==================================
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:45:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #41 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
> With gcc-4.7.0 (from SVN), the test-ffi test now passes (libffi from
> GIT)
Excellent! I guess that this was a libffi bug.
> but I get three other failures.
>
> The compiler that is normally used on the system, is llvm-gcc-4.2, and
> its compile is still running.
Please let us know the results of 'make check' when compiling with
llvm-gcc-4.2. I'm especially curious to hear whether the bytevector
tests fail with that compiler as well.
> Running bytevectors.test
> FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (eval)
> FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (compile)
In the directory where you built using GCC-4.7.0 (SVN), can you please
apply the following 'patch for bytevectors.test' and then, from the
guile-2.0.5 directory, run:
./check-guile bytevectors.test
and show us the output?
This is a shot in the dark, but I've also attached a patch that _might_
fix the bytevector problem. After applying it, it should be sufficient
to simply run "make" again, and it shouldn't take long. Let us know!
Thanks,
Mark
[BYTE_SWAP_TEST_HELP.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]
diff --git a/test-suite/tests/bytevectors.test b/test-suite/tests/bytevectors.test
index 3007434..b652935 100644
--- a/test-suite/tests/bytevectors.test
+++ b/test-suite/tests/bytevectors.test
@@ -114,10 +114,14 @@
#xfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffd)))
(pass-if "bytevector-sint-ref [small]"
- (let ((b (u8-list->bytevector '(#xff #xf0 #xff))))
- (equal? (bytevector-sint-ref b 0 (endianness big) 2)
- (bytevector-sint-ref b 1 (endianness little) 2)
- -16)))
+ (let* ((b (u8-list->bytevector '(#xff #xf0 #xff)))
+ (be-result (bytevector-sint-ref b 0 (endianness big) 2))
+ (le-result (bytevector-sint-ref b 1 (endianness little) 2)))
+ (or (equal? be-result le-result -16)
+ (begin (format (current-error-port)
+ "bytevector-sint-ref [small] failure: ~S ~S~%"
+ be-result le-result)
+ #f))))
(pass-if "bytevector-sint-ref [large]"
(let ((b (make-bytevector 50)))
[BYTE_SWAP_FIX.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]
diff --git a/libguile/bytevectors.c b/libguile/bytevectors.c
index fff5355..8574a36 100644
--- a/libguile/bytevectors.c
+++ b/libguile/bytevectors.c
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
\
memcpy (&c_result, &c_bv[c_index], (_len) / 8); \
if (!scm_is_eq (endianness, scm_i_native_endianness)) \
- c_result = INT_SWAP (_len) (c_result); \
+ c_result = (INT_TYPE (_len, _sign)) INT_SWAP (_len) ((INT_TYPE (_len, unsigned)) c_result); \
\
result = SCM_I_MAKINUM (c_result); \
} \
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@
\
c_value_short = (INT_TYPE (_len, _sign)) c_value; \
if (!scm_is_eq (endianness, scm_i_native_endianness)) \
- c_value_short = INT_SWAP (_len) (c_value_short); \
+ c_value_short = (INT_TYPE (_len, _sign)) INT_SWAP (_len) ((INT_TYPE (_len, unsigned)) c_value_short); \
\
memcpy (&c_bv[c_index], &c_value_short, (_len) / 8); \
} \
@@ -918,7 +918,7 @@ bytevector_large_set (char *c_bv, size_t c_size, int signed_p,
INT_TYPE (16, _sign) c_value16; \
memcpy (&c_value16, c_bv, 2); \
if (swap) \
- value = (INT_TYPE (16, _sign)) bswap_16 (c_value16); \
+ value = (INT_TYPE (16, _sign)) bswap_16 ((scm_t_uint16) c_value16); \
else \
value = c_value16; \
} \
@@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ bytevector_unsigned_ref (const char *c_bv, size_t c_size, SCM endianness)
swap = !scm_is_eq (endianness, scm_i_native_endianness); \
\
if (swap) \
- c_value16 = (INT_TYPE (16, _sign)) bswap_16 (c_value); \
+ c_value16 = (INT_TYPE (16, _sign)) bswap_16 ((scm_t_uint16) c_value); \
else \
c_value16 = c_value; \
\
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:51:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #44 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
> After doing this, the same failure with the LLVM-GCC compiler:
> /usr/bin/cc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
> /usr/bin/gcc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1
>
> This is the compiler that one will use on OS X 10.7 if one installs
> Xcode 4.2.1, and is not setting the compiler explicitly (or overriding
> by another install).
>
> Hans
>
>
> PASS: test-asmobs
> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
> FAIL: test-ffi
Are you sure this guile was linked against your newly-built 'libffi'?
Your previously reported results (using GCC 4.7.0 from SVN) seemed to
suggest a bug in an earlier version of 'libffi' that has since been
fixed in their development tree.
Mark
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:20:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #47 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 1 Feb 2012, at 02:49, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> After doing this, the same failure with the LLVM-GCC compiler:
>> /usr/bin/cc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
>> /usr/bin/gcc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
>> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1
>>
>> This is the compiler that one will use on OS X 10.7 if one installs
>> Xcode 4.2.1, and is not setting the compiler explicitly (or overriding
>> by another install).
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> PASS: test-asmobs
>> bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
>> FAIL: test-ffi
>
> Are you sure this guile was linked against your newly-built 'libffi'?
Yes, I compiled it with llvm-gcc, and installed it. All new compiles were made out of the source directory.
> Your previously reported results (using GCC 4.7.0 from SVN) seemed to
> suggest a bug in an earlier version of 'libffi' that has since been
> fixed in their development tree.
It suggests that problem is with llvm-gcc (an clang), I think. With gcc-4.7 there is no libffi failure.
Hans
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:37:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #50 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 1 Feb 2012, at 02:42, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
>> With gcc-4.7.0 (from SVN), the test-ffi test now passes (libffi from
>> GIT)
>
> Excellent! I guess that this was a libffi bug.
No, I think it is with llvm-gcc, in view of that it remained in that compile (as described in another letter).
>> but I get three other failures.
>>
>> The compiler that is normally used on the system, is llvm-gcc-4.2, and
>> its compile is still running.
>
> Please let us know the results of 'make check' when compiling with
> llvm-gcc-4.2. I'm especially curious to hear whether the bytevector
> tests fail with that compiler as well.
There is no such test with the llvm-gcc compiler, strangely enough: it just produces a few tests. It does not show the header that is shown for gcc-4.7 (below), like this
Hans
From gcc-4.7 compile 'make check':
Totals for this test run:
passes: 34886
failures: 3
unexpected passes: 0
expected failures: 30
unresolved test cases: 29
untested test cases: 1
unsupported test cases: 9
errors: 0
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:52:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #53 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 10:18, Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
> It suggests that problem is with llvm-gcc (an clang), I think. With
> gcc-4.7 there is no libffi failure.
Is it correct to say that you experience this issue if libffi is
compiled with llvm-gcc / clang, but do not experience this issue if
libffi is compiled with gcc-4.7 ?
Trying to summarize; it has been hard to follow :)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:38:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #56 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 1 Feb 2012, at 12:50, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> It suggests that problem is with llvm-gcc (an clang), I think. With
>> gcc-4.7 there is no libffi failure.
>
> Is it correct to say that you experience this issue if libffi is
> compiled with llvm-gcc / clang, …
Yes, and also guile-2.0.5 (see below for more info).
> ...but do not experience this issue if
> libffi is compiled with gcc-4.7 ?
I have not tried that one. There is not issue with libffi from latest GIT compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2, and guile-2.0.5 compiled with SVN gcc-4.7.
> Trying to summarize; it has been hard to follow :)
Indeed, as there are three compilers :-):
/usr/bin/clang
/usr/bin/cc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
/usr/bin/gcc -> llvm-gcc-4.2
These are provided by Xcode 4.2.1. So if one does not set CC, one will use llvm-gcc-4.2.
This compiler, llvm-gcc-4.2, is also what I use for system installation, as the SVN gcc-4.7 is experimental. Also gcc-4.7 was compiled using llvm-gcc-4.2; it did not compile with gcc-4.6.2.
So it seems safest to stick to llvm-gcc-4.2, as that is what package developers mostly will check against.
Hans
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:15:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #59 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 1 Feb 2012, at 02:42, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> Running bytevectors.test
>> FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (eval)
>> FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (compile)
>
> In the directory where you built using GCC-4.7.0 (SVN), can you please
> apply the following 'patch for bytevectors.test' …
This assumes that one builds from within the source directory.
> and then, from the
> guile-2.0.5 directory, run:
>
> ./check-guile bytevectors.test
>
> and show us the output?
It did not help (output below).
Hans
$ ./check-guile bytevectors.test
Testing /usr/local/src/guile/gcc-4.7/guile-2.0.5-build/meta/guile ... bytevectors.test
with GUILE_LOAD_PATH=/usr/local/src/guile/gcc-4.7/guile-2.0.5/test-suite
Running bytevectors.test
bytevector-sint-ref [small] failure: -16 4294967280
FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (eval)
bytevector-sint-ref [small] failure: -16 4294967280
FAIL: bytevectors.test: 2.3 Operations on Bytes and Octets: bytevector-sint-ref [small] (compile)
Totals for this test run:
passes: 132
failures: 2
unexpected passes: 0
expected failures: 0
unresolved test cases: 0
untested test cases: 0
unsupported test cases: 0
errors: 0
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:55:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #62 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 14:36, Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
> There is no issue with libffi from latest GIT compiled with
> llvm-gcc-4.2, and guile-2.0.5 compiled with SVN gcc-4.7.
But there is an issue with libffi from git compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2,
and guile-2.0.5 compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2?
Can you try compiling libffi from GIT with gcc-4.7, and guile-2.0.5 with
llvm-gcc-4.2?
Just to check :)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:09:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #65 received at 10681 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 1 Feb 2012, at 15:53, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> There is no issue with libffi from latest GIT compiled with
>> llvm-gcc-4.2, and guile-2.0.5 compiled with SVN gcc-4.7.
>
> But there is an issue with libffi from git compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2,
> and guile-2.0.5 compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2?
Right, only that I think the issue is with guile-2.0.5 compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2.
> Can you try compiling libffi from GIT with gcc-4.7, and guile-2.0.5 with
> llvm-gcc-4.2?
>
> Just to check :)
Unfortunately, llvm-gcc-4.2 is very slow; compiling guile-2.0.5 takes a very long time. So I think I will have to give up on this one.
Hans
Reply sent
to
Andy Wingo <wingo <at> pobox.com>:
You have taken responsibility.
(Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:29:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com>:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:29:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #70 received at 10681-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 16:08, Hans Aberg <haberg-1 <at> telia.com> writes:
> On 1 Feb 2012, at 15:53, Andy Wingo wrote:
>
>>> There is no issue with libffi from latest GIT compiled with
>>> llvm-gcc-4.2, and guile-2.0.5 compiled with SVN gcc-4.7.
>>
>> But there is an issue with libffi from git compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2,
>> and guile-2.0.5 compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2?
>
> Right, only that I think the issue is with guile-2.0.5 compiled with llvm-gcc-4.2.
>
>> Can you try compiling libffi from GIT with gcc-4.7, and guile-2.0.5 with
>> llvm-gcc-4.2?
>>
>> Just to check :)
>
> Unfortunately, llvm-gcc-4.2 is very slow; compiling guile-2.0.5 takes a very long time. So I think I will have to give up on this one.
Closing this one as done then. Whenever you give a newer Guile a try
(like tomorrow's 2.0.6), we can look again.
Thanks!
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Information forwarded
to
bug-guile <at> gnu.org:
bug#10681; Package
guile.
(Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:10:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #73 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 6 Jul 2012, at 20:23, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Closing this one as done then. Whenever you give a newer Guile a try
> (like tomorrow's 2.0.6), we can look again.
Two tests failed. Drop me a note if you want further investigation.
Hans
----
$ make check
GEN public-submodule-commit
make check-recursive
Making check in lib
make check-recursive
make[4]: Nothing to be done for `check-am'.
Making check in meta
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
Making check in libguile
make check-am
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `check-am'.
Making check in module
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
Making check in guile-readline
make check-am
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `check-am'.
Making check in examples
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
Making check in emacs
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
Making check in test-suite
Making check in standalone
make check-am
make test-num2integral test-round test-list test-unwind test-conversion test-loose-ends test-scm-c-read test-scm-take-locale-symbol test-scm-take-u8vector test-scm-to-latin1-string test-scm-values test-with-guile-module test-scm-with-guile test-scm-spawn-thread test-pthread-create test-pthread-create-secondary test-system-cmds test-bad-identifiers test-require-extension test-guile-snarf test-import-order test-command-line-encoding test-command-line-encoding2 test-asmobs test-ffi test-fast-slot-ref test-mb-regexp test-use-srfi test-extensions
CC test_num2integral-test-num2integral.o
CCLD test-num2integral
CC test_round-test-round.o
CCLD test-round
CC test_list-test-list.o
CCLD test-list
CC test_unwind-test-unwind.o
CCLD test-unwind
CC test_conversion-test-conversion.o
CCLD test-conversion
CC test_loose_ends-test-loose-ends.o
CCLD test-loose-ends
CC test_scm_c_read-test-scm-c-read.o
CCLD test-scm-c-read
CC test_scm_take_locale_symbol-test-scm-take-locale-symbol.o
CCLD test-scm-take-locale-symbol
CC test_scm_take_u8vector-test-scm-take-u8vector.o
CCLD test-scm-take-u8vector
CC test_scm_to_latin1_string-test-scm-to-latin1-string.o
CCLD test-scm-to-latin1-string
CC test_scm_values-test-scm-values.o
CCLD test-scm-values
CC test_with_guile_module-test-with-guile-module.o
CCLD test-with-guile-module
CC test_scm_with_guile-test-scm-with-guile.o
CCLD test-scm-with-guile
CC test_scm_spawn_thread-test-scm-spawn-thread.o
CCLD test-scm-spawn-thread
CC test_pthread_create-test-pthread-create.o
CCLD test-pthread-create
CC test_pthread_create_secondary-test-pthread-create-secondary.o
CCLD test-pthread-create-secondary
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-system-cmds'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-bad-identifiers'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-require-extension'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-guile-snarf'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-import-order'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-command-line-encoding'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-command-line-encoding2'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-asmobs'.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-ffi'.
make[5]: `test-fast-slot-ref' is up to date.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-mb-regexp'.
make[5]: `test-use-srfi' is up to date.
make[5]: Nothing to be done for `../../../guile-2.0.6/test-suite/standalone/test-extensions'.
make check-TESTS
PASS: test-system-cmds
PASS: test-bad-identifiers
PASS: test-require-extension
PASS: test-guile-snarf
PASS: test-import-order
PASS: test-command-line-encoding
PASS: test-command-line-encoding2
PASS: test-num2integral
PASS: test-round
PASS: test-asmobs
bad return from expression `(f-sum -1 2000 -30000 40000000000)': expected 39999971999; got 39999972255
FAIL: test-ffi
PASS: test-list
PASS: test-unwind
fail: scm_is_unsigned_integer ((- (expt 2 64) 1), 0, 18446744073709551615) == 1
FAIL: test-conversion
PASS: test-loose-ends
PASS: test-fast-slot-ref
PASS: test-mb-regexp
PASS: test-use-srfi
PASS: test-scm-c-read
PASS: test-scm-take-locale-symbol
PASS: test-scm-take-u8vector
PASS: test-scm-to-latin1-string
PASS: test-scm-values
PASS: test-extensions
PASS: test-with-guile-module
PASS: test-scm-with-guile
PASS: test-scm-spawn-thread
PASS: test-pthread-create
PASS: test-pthread-create-secondary
==================================
2 of 29 tests failed
Please report to bug-guile <at> gnu.org
==================================
make[5]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 1
make[4]: *** [check-am] Error 2
make[3]: *** [check] Error 2
make[2]: *** [check-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: *** [check-recursive] Error 1
make: *** [check] Error 2
----
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 11 years and 267 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.