On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:17 AM, İsmail Dönmez <ism...@donmez.ws> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Jason Evans <jas...@canonware.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2014, at 4:28 AM, İsmail Dönmez <ism...@donmez.ws> wrote: > > I have 2 new failures: > > > > thd_start:test/unit/prof_accum.c:83: Failed assertion: > > (bt_count_prev+(i-i_prev)) <= (bt_count) --> 6 > 1: thd_start > > I'm guessing that this is due to the compiler being especially intelligent > regarding mutual recursion for alloc_[01](), and I just added noinline > attributes for those functions: > > > https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/commit/526e4a59a2fe39e4f8bdf1ec0c0d2a5a557c3f62 > > However, if the compiler is being that smart, it may also be smart enough to > do tail call optimization despite an attempt in the code to thwart > optimization. It appears that the gcc flag to disable this is > -fno-optimize-sibling-calls, but I'm reluctant to resort to that unless the > noinline attribute fails to do the job. > > This one is still failing, also adding -fno-optimize-sibling-calls to CFLAGS > didn't fix it.
Did -fno-optimize-sibling-calls make it through to the compilation commands? If not, try using EXTRA_CFLAGS instead. Assuming -fno-optimize-sibling-calls is actually getting used, I'm out of ideas as to how this is failing, and I may need to set up an equivalent environment to dig in further. Thanks, Jason
_______________________________________________ jemalloc-discuss mailing list jemalloc-discuss@canonware.com http://www.canonware.com/mailman/listinfo/jemalloc-discuss
