Hello!
I have not been able to identify the commit that introduced the floating point
issue. However, I seem to have found what fixes the segfault properly and also
another fix for a third problem, see below.
FWIW, Adhemeveral told me he would be looking into the glibc issues on alpha in
the
Hello!
On 12/15/22 09:09, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
If your glibc fails with Floating Point exception, I fear there might be
a second bug hiding somewhere which we need to bisect as well. This is
particularly annoying since we would have to apply the above diff for
every bisecting step.
Hi Adrian,
On 15.12.22 11:06, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Hi,
On 15.12.22 11:02, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi!
On 12/15/22 10:49, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Maybe adding [1] might help, but the patch actually removes it.
It's missing this hunk:
diff --git
Hi,
On 15.12.22 11:02, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi!
On 12/15/22 10:49, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Maybe adding [1] might help, but the patch actually removes it.
It's missing this hunk:
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysconf-sigstksz.h
b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysconf-sigstksz.h
Hi!
On 12/15/22 10:49, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Maybe adding [1] might help, but the patch actually removes it.
It's missing this hunk:
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysconf-sigstksz.h
b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sysconf-sigstksz.h
index 64d450b22c..4552e77d59 100644
---
Hi,
On 15.12.22 09:09, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi!
On 12/14/22 21:44, Frank Scheiner wrote:
I'm attaching the second diff as a patch.
I think there's some whitespace difference. I manually applied the
rejected stuff, made a `git diff` and comparing that to your attached
patch
Hi!
On 12/14/22 21:44, Frank Scheiner wrote:
I'm attaching the second diff as a patch.
I think there's some whitespace difference. I manually applied the
rejected stuff, made a `git diff` and comparing that to your attached
patch gives:
Or just use the attached patch file from my previous
On 14.12.22 21:32, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi!
On 12/14/22 21:16, Frank Scheiner wrote:
I'll do that tomorrow. The thing is that this diff doesn't apply cleanly:
Which version of the workaround diff did you use? There are two.
There is one that applies cleanly on top of
Hi!
On 12/14/22 21:16, Frank Scheiner wrote:
I'll do that tomorrow. The thing is that this diff doesn't apply cleanly:
Which version of the workaround diff did you use? There are two.
There is one that applies cleanly on top of
6c57d320484988e87e446e2e60ce42816bf51d53
and a second one that
Hi Adrian,
On 14.12.22 20:51, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
[...]
Can we be sure that this reproducer identifies the same problem than
the build failures from the original post ([1])?
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha/2022/11/msg3.html
Well, this is how I identified that
On 14.12.22 20:55, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
[...]
Unfortunately it also doesn't work here when optimized for EV67.
OK, this just confirms what my cross-compile tests with "-mcpu=ev67
-mtune=ev67"
where the segfault wasn't fixed either by raising the baseline.
If you have a user
Hi!
On 12/14/22 20:46, Frank Scheiner wrote:
```
root@ds15:/srv/storage/build/glibc-at-6c57d320484988e87e446e2e60ce42816bf51d53-ev67#
CC="alpha-linux-gnu-gcc-12 -mcpu=ev67 -mtune=ev67 "
CXX="alpha-linux-gnu-g++-12 -mcpu=ev67 -mtune=ev67 "
MIG="alpha-linux-gnu-mig" ../../glibc/configure
Hi Frank!
On 12/14/22 18:21, Frank Scheiner wrote:
(sid-alpha-sbuild)glaubitz@z6:~/glibc-git/build$
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/glaubitz/glibc-git/build /bin/bash
If the bug is present, this command will segfault:
Segmentation fault
Otherwise it will just spawn another bash which
On 14.12.22 18:21, Frank Scheiner wrote:
[...]
Regardless, I can confirm this on my DS15:
```
root@ds15:/srv/storage/build#
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD/glibc-at-36231bee7ab36d59dd121ea85b91411ae86945f3
/bin/bash
root@ds15:/srv/storage/build# echo $?
0
root@ds15:/srv/storage/build# exit
exit
Hi Adrian,
On 13.12.22 17:21, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi!
On 12/13/22 10:52, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
You could cross-compile glibc. That's most likely what I am going to do.
For the record, here's how I am doing it.
[...]
Thanks for that, this is quite useful.
4. Enter
On 12/13/22 17:25, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 11/13/22 00:45, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I just noticed that there is a regression in glibc on alpha with version 2.34
or later.
Looking at the build logs for Debian's 2.34-8 [1], 2.35-4 [2] and 2.36-4 [3],
it's obvious
there is
Hi!
On 11/13/22 00:45, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I just noticed that there is a regression in glibc on alpha with version 2.34
or later.
Looking at the build logs for Debian's 2.34-8 [1], 2.35-4 [2] and 2.36-4 [3],
it's obvious
there is something wrong given the many "Segmentation
Hi!
On 12/13/22 10:52, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
You could cross-compile glibc. That's most likely what I am going to do.
For the record, here's how I am doing it.
1. Create an alpha chroot on an x86_64 host system using debootstrap
on a system with qemu-user-static installed.
Hi,
On 13.12.22 10:52, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
[...]
During this compilation I got 4 segfaults from the compiler (gcc-12)
and a "gcc: internal compiler
error: Aborted signal terminated program cc1". If you are interested
in the details, I have all the
error messages available.
Is
Hello!
On 12/13/22 10:33, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Hi guys,
On 13.12.22 06:15, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
[...]
I am still interested in fixing the glibc bug and will work on bisecting it.
I yestderday did give that a try on a DS15, but it took already hours to get
glibc 2.33 compiled.
Hi again,
just wanted to clarify something I saw in the build logs from the
buildds - imago to be specific.
On 13.12.22 10:33, Frank Scheiner wrote:
[...]
Summarizing it, I'd be grateful if someone could do the bisecting on one
of the buildds or developer machines.
According to the logs
Hi guys,
On 13.12.22 06:15, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
[...]
I am still interested in fixing the glibc bug and will work on bisecting
it.
I yestderday did give that a try on a DS15, but it took already hours to
get glibc 2.33 compiled.
During this compilation I got 4 segfaults from
Hi!
On 12/13/22 08:44, Michael Cree wrote:
So what baseline do we want? Would EV56 be sufficient? Because that would
still work with my AlphaStation 433au and XP1000 and gets us BWX.
Yes. The first extension added is the byte-word extension which came
in with EV56. That provides CPU
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 06:15:16AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 12/12/22 20:45, Michael Cree wrote:
> > Either the arch baseline is raised to something that is easier to
> > maintain (which, frankly, I think is essential if the Alpha port is to
> > survive any longer),
Hello!
On 12/12/22 20:45, Michael Cree wrote:
Either the arch baseline is raised to something that is easier to
maintain (which, frankly, I think is essential if the Alpha port is to
survive any longer), someone else steps up to fix the brokenness that
arises from non-atomic
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 07:24:06PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Michael Cree wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:24:59PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> On Dec 12, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Michael Cree wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I
> On Dec 12, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Michael Cree wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:24:59PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>
>>
On Dec 12, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Michael Cree wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not interested in supporting old Alphas without BWX anymore.
>>> I am drawing the
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:24:59PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Michael Cree wrote:
> >
> > I am not interested in supporting old Alphas without BWX anymore.
> > I am drawing the line. Either someone steps up to support non-BWX
> > Alpha and
> On Dec 12, 2022, at 9:27 AM, Michael Cree wrote:
>
> I am not interested in supporting old Alphas without BWX anymore.
> I am drawing the line. Either someone steps up to support non-BWX
> Alpha and promptly fixes glibc or the architecture baseline is
> increased to include BWX (thereby
On 12.12.22 09:17, Michael Cree wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 08:56:40AM +0100, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Dear Michael,
On 12.12.22 08:27, Michael Cree wrote:
With the usrmerge uploads now depending on a recent libc version Alpha
is now dead in the water. Nothing can be built. Thus we have
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 09:02:23AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Frank!
>
> > On Dec 12, 2022, at 8:57 AM, Frank Scheiner wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I fully understand the issue here:
> >
> > See, glibc used to work for alpha up until 2.33 as I read. Then a change
> > broke it
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 08:56:40AM +0100, Frank Scheiner wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> On 12.12.22 08:27, Michael Cree wrote:
> > With the usrmerge uploads now depending on a recent libc version Alpha
> > is now dead in the water. Nothing can be built. Thus we have to fix
> > glibc to continue
Hi Frank!
> On Dec 12, 2022, at 8:57 AM, Frank Scheiner wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand the issue here:
>
> See, glibc used to work for alpha up until 2.33 as I read. Then a change
> broke it for alpha with 2.34. Does the respective glibc maintainer for
> alpha (Richard Henderson
Dear Michael,
On 12.12.22 08:27, Michael Cree wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:47:59PM +0100, Frank Scheiner wrote:
On 20.11.22 10:03, Michael Cree wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 12:45:17AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I just noticed that there is a regression in glibc on alpha
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:47:59PM +0100, Frank Scheiner wrote:
> On 20.11.22 10:03, Michael Cree wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 12:45:17AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > > I just noticed that there is a regression in glibc on alpha with version
> > > 2.34 or later.
> > >
> >
Please remove my email from your mailing lIst!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 20 Nov 2022, at 12:48, Frank Scheiner wrote:
>
> On 20.11.22 10:03, Michael Cree wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 12:45:17AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> I just noticed that there is a regression in
On 20.11.22 10:03, Michael Cree wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 12:45:17AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I just noticed that there is a regression in glibc on alpha with version 2.34
or later.
Looking at the build logs for Debian's 2.34-8 [1], 2.35-4 [2] and 2.36-4 [3],
it's obvious
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 12:45:17AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I just noticed that there is a regression in glibc on alpha with version 2.34
> or later.
>
> Looking at the build logs for Debian's 2.34-8 [1], 2.35-4 [2] and 2.36-4 [3],
> it's obvious
> there is something wrong
38 matches
Mail list logo
