Hi Jurij, Jurij Smakov escreveu isso aí: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 10:54:07AM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Dear sparc porters, > > > > I need some help from you to make ruby-ffi build correctly on sparc. > > The source actually compiles OK, but the test suite crashes with an > > "Illegal instruction" error. Is this a known problem? > > > > I managed to create a minimal test script that reproduces the problem > > without running the entire test suite. It is attached to this bug > > report (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=642266), and > > all you need to do is run it from the root of the package source dir (it > > will compile everything that's needed before running the actual test > > code). > > > > I also attached strace output from running the test script against both > > ruby1.8 and ruby1.9.1 (a second run, after having the C code built to > > remove unecessary cruft): they have similar results. > > We used to have a bug in gcc-4.6 on sparc, which resulted in > miscompilation of pack/unpack function in Ruby: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=635126 > > The fact that your test case causes a failure in pack-related function > makes me think that this might be the same problem. Last ruby-ffi > package has been built with gcc-4.6 4.6.2-4, according to > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ruby-ffi&arch=sparc&ver=1.0.11debian-2&stamp=1325143302 > > The first gcc-4.6 version containing a fix is 4.6.2-6, so the build > still happened with broken gcc. If you can, try either building > the code with older compiler and -fno-tree-sra flag, or newer > compiler, to see whether this fixes the problem. I'm on vacation for > another week and don't have access to my sparc box, so if you will not > be able to confirm this fix, I'll be glad to give it a go once I'm > back.
I've just tested on smetana.debian.org (where those strace logs were obtained before), and the gcc there is way newer than that: gcc 4:4.6.2-4 gcc-4.6 4.6.2-11 I also tried building with -fno-tree-sra, but got the same results. So, it would be very nice if you could look at this issue. -- Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
