This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate
- From: Samuel Thibault <samuel dot thibault at gnu dot org>
- To: Svante Signell <svante dot signell at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, bug-hurd at gnu dot org, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:51:57 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140418080311 dot GA5626 at type dot bordeaux dot inria dot fr> <1398328750 dot 568 dot 74 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain> <20140501224530 dot GD5592 at type dot youpi dot perso dot aquilenet dot fr> <1399017803 dot 8487 dot 5 dot camel at PackardBell-PC> <1399018692 dot 8487 dot 7 dot camel at PackardBell-PC> <20140502095753 dot GC6577 at type> <20140502100027 dot GD6577 at type> <1399027556 dot 8487 dot 12 dot camel at PackardBell-PC> <20140502105234 dot GM6577 at type> <1399363609 dot 13092 dot 29 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain>
Just to explicitly ask for it:
Svante Signell, le Tue 06 May 2014 10:06:49 +0200, a écrit :
> For some (yet) unknown reason all libgo tests fails with a segfault when
> run in the build tree: make, sh or something else, the test commands are
> rather hard to track.
Doesn't that dump a core? Do you have /servers/crash properly pointing
to /servers/crash-dump-core and ulimit -u set to unlimited?
> However, running the tests manually, sigh!, after installing gccgo and
> libgo5 from gcc-4.9-4.9.0-1 with split stack support the result is as
> follows:
>
> Total: 122
> PASS: 95
> FAIL: 27
Good! :)
> Number of tests succeeding with libpthread's stack guard fixed: 33 (and
> the other libc fixes)
I'm not sure to understand: does it mean only 33 pass instead of 95?
> Note: In many of the failing tests, only a small subset of each test
> fails.
Ok, that's a good sign.
Samuel