Your message dated Mon, 6 Mar 2023 13:52:38 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: Bug#871446: jemalloc: FTBFS on hurd-i386: aligned_alloc test hangs has caused the Debian Bug report #871446, regarding jemalloc: FTBFS on hurd-i386: aligned_alloc test hangs to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 871446: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871446 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Source: jemalloc Version: 3.6.0-10 Severity: important Justification: fails to build from source Thanks for taking care of #828871! jemalloc now compiles on hurd-i386, but the build still ultimately fails because the aligned_alloc test hangs (hard): === test/integration/aligned_alloc === Session terminated, terminating shell...Killed Test harness error Makefile:344: recipe for target 'check' failed make[1]: *** [check] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>' dh_auto_test: make -j1 check VERBOSE=1 returned exit code 2 debian/rules:46: recipe for target 'build-arch' failed make: *** [build-arch] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build-arch gave error exit status 2 E: Build killed with signal TERM after 180 minutes of inactivity E: Build killed with signal KILL after 5 minutes of inactivity E: Build killed with signal KILL after 10 minutes of inactivity On a possibly related note, I see some warnings regarding that test, though jemalloc should still fail gracefully on excessive values. test/integration/aligned_alloc.c: In function 'test_oom_errors': test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:43:4: warning: argument 2 value '2147483648' exceeds maximum object size 2147483647 [-Walloc-size-larger-than=] p = aligned_alloc(alignment, size); ~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In file included from test/include/test/jemalloc_test.h:1:0, from test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:1: /usr/include/stdlib.h:470:14: note: in a call to allocation function 'aligned_alloc' declared here extern void *aligned_alloc (size_t __alignment, size_t __size) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:56:4: warning: argument 2 value '3221225473' exceeds maximum object size 2147483647 [-Walloc-size-larger-than=] p = aligned_alloc(alignment, size); ~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In file included from test/include/test/jemalloc_test.h:1:0, from test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:1: /usr/include/stdlib.h:470:14: note: in a call to allocation function 'aligned_alloc' declared here extern void *aligned_alloc (size_t __alignment, size_t __size) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:68:4: warning: argument 2 value '4294967280' exceeds maximum object size 2147483647 [-Walloc-size-larger-than=] p = aligned_alloc(alignment, size); ~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In file included from test/include/test/jemalloc_test.h:1:0, from test/integration/aligned_alloc.c:1: r/usr/include/stdlib.h:470:14: note: in a call to allocation function 'aligned_alloc' declared here extern void *aligned_alloc (size_t __alignment, size_t __size) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ Could you please take a look? You can find the full log at https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=jemalloc&arch=hurd-i386&ver=3.6.0-10&stamp=1502088411&raw=0 Thanks! -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/[email protected]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Hi Samuel et al, On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 04:54:10AM +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:57:39PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 02:26:16AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Thanks for looking into this! I'm really out of my depth here. Don't > > assume that the platform settings in configure.ac are the right ones > > either -- I just guesstimated them, and may just as well be something > > there. > > > > I'd suggest reaching out to upstream directly on either a GitHub issue, > > or their Gitter channel (they're responsive in my experience). Note that > > I haven't sent them debian/patches/hurd.patch as it hasn't been > > functional so far, so it may be worth prefacing your communication with > > the configure.ac settings that we've chosen. > > > > If you succeed into figuring out the root cause and making jemalloc > > build, happy to prepare a PR to upstream this. > > I'm wondering if you've had any chance to look into this. I've just > uploaded 5.3.0-1 to unstable (after a brief stay in experimental, as > 5.3.0-1~exp1), and was looking over FTBFSes and open bugs. I haven't heard back in a couple of years, and this bug has been open since 2017 as well. I don't see value in keeping this tracked in the BTS. Presumably this isn't the only Hurd-related FTBFS in the archive either and I don't think we are trying to maintain a bug for each upstream Hurd porting issue. I'm therefore going to mark this as "done". As I think can be inferred from my interactions in this bug :), this isn't due to lack of willingness on my end to support this. Someone just needs to do the porting work, and while I gave it a stab, this is beyond my knowledge and interests. If at any point yourself or any other Hurd porter finds some time to look into it, I'd be happy to help out in any way. Feel free to reopen this bug or file a new one in that case. MRs etc. are also more than welcome! Regards, Faidon
--- End Message ---
