On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Zoltan Varga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this happen with latest mono SVN HEAD ? If so, what is the output of
> mono --version ?
Yeah, I´ve just tried it again with r108927
Mono JIT compiler version 2.0 ( r)
Copyright (C) 2002-2008 Novell, Inc and Contributors. www.mono-project.com
TLS: __thread
GC: Included Boehm (with typed GC)
SIGSEGV: altstack
Notifications: epoll
Architecture: x86
Disabled: none
> Zoltan
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Cedric Vivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Zoltan,
>>
>> It has probably been already reported (though I cannot find it in the
>> bugzilla) but there is a crash with the new JIT when starting Tomboy
>> and other applications using NDesk.Dbus (latest stable versions of
>> both).
>>
>> Stacktrace:
>> at (wrapper managed-to-native)
>> System.Reflection.MonoMethod.InternalInvoke
>> (object,object[],System.Exception&) <0x00004>
>> at (wrapper managed-to-native)
>> System.Reflection.MonoMethod.InternalInvoke
>> (object,object[],System.Exception&) <0xffffffff>
>> at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke
>> (object,System.Reflection.BindingFlags,System.Reflection.Binder,object[],System.Globalization.CultureInfo)
>> <0x0008e>
>> at System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (object,object[]) <0x0001c>
>> at System.Reflection.Emit.DynamicMethod.Invoke
>> (object,System.Reflection.BindingFlags,System.Reflection.Binder,object[],System.Globalization.CultureInfo)
>> <0x00050>
>> at System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (object,object[]) <0x0001c>
>> at NDesk.DBus.MessageWriter.WriteValueType (object,System.Type) <0x0005f>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Message.GetHeaderData () <0x0009d>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Connection.WriteMessage (NDesk.DBus.Message) <0x00019>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Connection.SendWithReply (NDesk.DBus.Message) <0x0006f>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Connection.SendWithReplyAndBlock (NDesk.DBus.Message)
>> <0x0000d>
>> at NDesk.DBus.BusObject.SendMethodCall
>> (string,string,string,NDesk.DBus.MessageWriter,System.Type,System.Exception&)
>> <0x00100>
>> at IBusProxy.Hello () <0x0004a>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Bus.Register () <0x0001d>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Bus..ctor (string) <0x0002e>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Bus.Open (string) <0x00051>
>> at NDesk.DBus.Bus.get_System () <0x0004c>
>> at NDesk.DBus.BusG.Init () <0x00012>
>> at Tomboy.RemoteControlProxy.Register (Tomboy.NoteManager) <0x0000a>
>> at Tomboy.Tomboy.RegisterRemoteControl (Tomboy.NoteManager) <0x00015>
>> at Tomboy.Tomboy.Main (string[]) <0x000f5>
>> at (wrapper runtime-invoke)
>> Tomboy.Tomboy.runtime_invoke_void_string[]
>> (object,intptr,intptr,intptr) <0xffffffff>
>>
>> Native stacktrace:
>> mono [0x806e178]
>> Cannot access memory at address 0x23
>>
>> Debug info from gdb:
>> Thread 1 (Thread 0xb7d3f960 (LWP 25863)):
>> #0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
>> #1 0xb7e54807 in syscall () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
>> #2 0x0806e212 in mono_handle_native_sigsegv (signal=11,
>> ctx=0xb7c0ed0c) at mini-exceptions.c:1294
>> #3 0x080872a0 in mono_arch_handle_altstack_exception
>> (sigctx=0xb7c0ed0c, fault_addr=0x27, stack_ovf=0) at
>> exceptions-x86.c:855
>> #4 <signal handler called>
>> #5 mono_method_to_ir2 (cfg=0xa13d600, method=0xa15d8b0,
>> start_bblock=0xa148314, end_bblock=0xa1483ac, return_var=0x0,
>> dont_inline=0xa15dd00,
>> inline_args=0x0, inline_offset=0, is_virtual_call=0) at
>> method-to-ir.c:7536
>> #6 0x081c0ac6 in mini_method_compile (method=0xa15d8b0,
>> opts=30501375, domain=0x34ea0, run_cctors=<value optimized out>,
>> compile_aot=<value optimized out>, parts=0) at mini.c:13232
>> #7 0x081c28c0 in mono_jit_compile_method (method=0xa15d8b0) at mini.c:13917
>> #8 0x081c3192 in mono_jit_runtime_invoke (method=0xa15d8b0, obj=0x0,
>> params=0xbf9ff8f0, exc=0x0) at mini.c:14263
>> #9 0x0813e5d3 in mono_runtime_invoke_array (method=0xa15d8b0,
>> obj=0x0, params=0x24d5a0, exc=0x0) at object.c:3251
>> #10 0x080e30c1 in ves_icall_InternalInvoke (method=0x47c8b8, this=0x0,
>> params=0x24d5a0, exc=0xbf9ffa28) at icall.c:3034
>>
>>
>> Everything works fine when using MONO_COUNT=0.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Zoltan Varga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> The merge is now done, the current testing status is the following:
>>> - x86/amd64 linux seems to be in good shape, the other
>>> architectures/OSes have some problems
>>>
>>> I would like to ask people to try out the new code, and report
>>> problems either by
>>> replying to this mail or by using bugzilla.
>>>
>>> To help track down problems, the new JIT actually includes the old
>>> one, and there is
>>> an env variable called MONO_COUNT which if set determines the number of
>>> methods compiled by the new JIT. So running your app with MONO_COUNT=0 will
>>> use the old JIT. This variable can be used to determine the exact
>>> method which is
>>> miscompiled by the new JIT using a binary search, ie.:
>>>
>>> MONO_COUNT=10000 mono app.exe -> fail
>>> MONO_COUNT=5000 mono app.exe -> fail
>>> MONO_COUNT=2500 mono app.exe -> success
>>> MONO_COUNT=3500 mono app.exe
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> When the new JIT code is deemed stable enough, the old JIT code and this env
>>> variable will be removed.
>>>
>>> In case anyone wants to revert their tree to before the merge, the before
>>> merge
>>> revision is r108475.
>>>
>>> Zoltan
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 01:09 +0200, Zoltan Varga wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that we have branched for mono 2.0, we would like to merge the
>>>>> work done on the linear IR branch to svn HEAD. The
>>>>> linear IR branch was created in 2005 October to explore some ideas on
>>>>> how to make our JIT simpler and how to make
>>>>> it generate better code. A lot of work has been put into the branch
>>>>> over the years, and now we are ready to merge it.
>>>>> Changes of this magnitude are never easy, so svn head might be a bit
>>>>> unstable for a few weeks as we work out the problems. Documentation
>>>>> for the new JIT and some benchmarks can be found at
>>>>> http://www.mono-project.com/Linear_IL
>>>>>
>>>>> I plan to do the merge tomorrow. Until then, please avoid checking in
>>>>> code to the mono/mini directory so as to not interfere with the merge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is great news! Do we have a list of architectures that will be
>>>> supported, and more importantly a list of architectures that will be
>>>> broken when you do the merge?
>>>>
>>>> If I remember correctly, ARM, x86, x86-64, sparc, and itanium are ported
>>>> already?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> -g
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mono-devel-list mailing list
>>> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
>>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
