Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
Jiri Slaby wrote: On 11/02/2009 11:02 PM, Justin Mattock wrote: Now with this oom-killer I'm hitting this on an imac9,1 with gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20091029 (experimental) So there is probably a leak in the gcc chain. Does this happen with a stable gcc version? well right now I'(on the macbook), seems to be going for a good ten minutes before I hit an error with a header file(nss) I'll see if I can get this thing to compile all the way through. (knock on wood) then go from there. Justin P. Mattock
Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
Jiri Slaby wrote: On 11/02/2009 11:02 PM, Justin Mattock wrote: Now with this oom-killer I'm hitting this on an imac9,1 with gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20091029 (experimental) So there is probably a leak in the gcc chain. Does this happen with a stable gcc version? o.k. I think it's something with the latest gcc(snapshot) right now she's been compiling firefox for 45min (then crapped out because I compiled nss without sqlite) without no omm-killer. Justin P. Mattock
Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: Hello, I'm not sure how to handle this, while compiling firefox-3.6b1.source I get this with the default compiling options, as well as custom: [ 532.942324] cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0 [ 532.942330] Pid: 16002, comm: cc1plus Tainted: P 2.6.32-rc5-00083-g04ea458 #2 [ 532.942333] Call Trace: [ 532.942342] [] T.417+0x7c/0x245 [ 532.942347] [] __out_of_memory+0x142/0x159 [ 532.942352] [] out_of_memory+0x6e/0x9d [ 532.942357] [] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x47e/0x5cc [ 532.942363] [] handle_mm_fault+0x25d/0x68e [ 532.942369] [] do_page_fault+0x2bb/0x2d3 [ 532.942373] [] page_fault+0x25/0x30 [ 532.942376] Mem-Info: [ 532.942378] DMA per-cpu: [ 532.942380] CPU0: hi:0, btch: 1 usd: 0 [ 532.942383] CPU1: hi:0, btch: 1 usd: 0 [ 532.942385] DMA32 per-cpu: [ 532.942388] CPU0: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 94 [ 532.942391] CPU1: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 23 [ 532.942393] Normal per-cpu: [ 532.942395] CPU0: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 150 [ 532.942398] CPU1: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 155 [ 532.942404] active_anon:707575 inactive_anon:264673 isolated_anon:0 [ 532.942406] active_file:58 inactive_file:33 isolated_file:0 file cache (active_file + inactive_file) was very little. It indicate anyone waste too much memory. I doubt you use buggy compiler. hmm... then this is something with firefox then.. In that case I'll continue to build my system with this compiler. Although a bit concerned building everything for the system with a compiler that shows some memory issue,but if you say its not the compiler, then I'll carry on with what I'm doing. (and use an older compiler for firefox). Justin P. Mattock
Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:29:29 -0800 Justin Mattock wrote: Hello, I'm not sure how to handle this, while compiling firefox-3.6b1.source I get this with the default compiling options, as well as custom: ... active_anon:2360492kB inactive_anon:590196kB active_file:84kB 2.8GB of anonymous memory figured it would be good enough (I think I have 4gig's total) [ 532.942508] Free swap = 0kB [ 532.942510] Total swap = 431632kB 430MB of swap, all used up. yep, narrow down to the smallest amount. That's a genuine OOM. Something (presumably cc1plus) has consumed wy too much memory, quite possibly leaked it. It would help if the oom-killer were to print some information about the oom-killed process's memory footprint. I still have everything setup(if you need me to add a debug patch let me know) as for compiling: libc compiled fine, kernel fine, and every package on the clfs list up to boot up the fresh system. (was figuring out how to compiling/install firefox before I threw the old system away). stable gcc(4.4*) on the macbook(same os/kernel) compiled fine firefox, xulrunner, and in the process thunderbird... Justin P. Mattock
Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
Dave Korn wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:29:29 -0800 Justin Mattock wrote: Hello, I'm not sure how to handle this, while compiling firefox-3.6b1.source I get this with the default compiling options, as well as custom: ... active_anon:2360492kB inactive_anon:590196kB active_file:84kB 2.8GB of anonymous memory [ 532.942508] Free swap = 0kB [ 532.942510] Total swap = 431632kB 430MB of swap, all used up. That's a genuine OOM. Something (presumably cc1plus) has consumed wy too much memory, quite possibly leaked it. It would help if the oom-killer were to print some information about the oom-killed process's memory footprint. I would think that the quickest way to proceed would be to re-run the failing compile command under gdb at the command-line and see what it's doing when the oom killer signals it, wouldn't it? Or turn up the swap until it doesn't get killed and see what info can be gleaned from the cc1(plus?) -fmem-report output. cheers, DaveK I can try, only issue I have is I don't use a distro, so building anything requires me to hand compile it(hopefully not difficult for gdb). So give me some time on this and I'll see if I can get this up and running, and add that patch to kernel then go from there. Justin P. Mattock
Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
Dave Korn wrote: Justin Mattock wrote: O.k. here is the info from dmesg(with the patch added) and what -fmem-report: I don't know how to read the oom dmesg, but as to the -fmem-report: Memory still allocated at the end of the compilation process Size AllocatedUsedOverhead Total 7200k 5293k104k ... what that's telling us is that there isn't a substantial leak in GCC, as there's only 7 meg left unreclaimed by GC at the end. I think we'll have to wait and see what the debugger tells us; either GCC really is using that much memory in processing the file, or there's some kind of system or kernel bug you're running into that is causing a leak in the VMM rather than the application. just finished compiling and installing gdb/valgrind String pool bytes 86k (17592186044415M overhead) 0xFFF0, lol, wut? It's possible that indicates some sort of memory corruption going on. Maybe valgrind can help, do you have that? cheers, DaveK Not sure how to use these.(need to read) Any quick commands I can do to get the info to you? Justin P. Mattock
pure64 patch for 4.5.0
hello, wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0 right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1 on 4.5.0. will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added. http://patches.cross-lfs.org/dev/gcc-4.4.1-pure64-1.patch Justin P. Mattock
Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0
Dave Korn wrote:
Justin Mattock wrote:
==1830== Command: c++ -o jsxml.o -c -DOSTYPE="Linux2.6" -DOSARCH=Linux
Ah, you're running it on the "c++" utility and it's reporting the stats for
that, but how it works is that "c++" (and "gcc", "g++", et al) is just a
driver, that parses the command line arguments and shells out to the actual
compiler ("cc1plus"), assembler and linker to get them to do all the work.
If you add "-v --save-temps" to the c++ invocation, it'll show you the
separate command lines it executes for the subprograms; the first invocation
will be of cc1plus, using the -E flag to generate the preprocessed source into
a .ii file, it's the second invocation you want, the one which uses the
"-fpreprocessed" flag and names the .ii file as input, which is the one that
actually then compiles the pre-processed source into assembly. For fuller
explanation, see the GCC wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC
cheers,
DaveK
I didn't think at the time, but when compiling
4.5.*(snapshot) I added the pure64 patch to
gcc, everything seemed to go fine, but maybe
there needs to be more to it.
would this might cause an issue(memory leak or something)
like what I was receiving even though there's a symlink
to lib64?
BTW: I just cleared the deck and started fresh,
compiled gcc+pure64 patch(snapshot) into a single directory,
and then looked at ldd /usr/bin/gcc*
I see it pointing to /lib64(looking on my other system with
4.4.1 it points to /lib)
Justin P. Mattock
Re: pure64 patch for 4.5.0
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: "Justin P. Mattock" writes: wanting to know if there's a pure64 patch for 4.5.0 right now I've plugged in a pure64 patch for 4.4.1 on 4.5.0. will this be good or is there more to that needs to be added. http://patches.cross-lfs.org/dev/gcc-4.4.1-pure64-1.patch You might do better to ask the people who wrote that patch. The patch does look generally plausible to me but I didn't really look at it in detail. Ian Cool thanks. I can try that and see. in any case it's probably better to stick with a stable version. (I just can't help it having an itch to try things out). Justin P. Mattock
Re: I want to use C and C + +
abdelali ghoulam wrote: hello, I downloaded "gcc-4.4.2.tar.gz" and it's first time I use GCC, I do not know how to install it on windows vista. I want to use C and C + + cordialy _ Tchattez en direct en en vidéo avec vos amis ! http://www.windowslive.fr/messenger/ correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't windows have their own compiler? Justin P. Mattock
Re: i need help
On 12/04/09 10:00, jose manuel Herrera Magana wrote: i am try to star hit my password and just don't letme beginig and tele smoking about certifiques and signaturas than i never see befor well first things first is gcc has nothing todo with your password settings. maybe resetting your accounts settings before doing su/sudo make install? Justin P. Mattock
Re: trunk's genmodes crashes on Ubuntu/Lucid (alpha2 snapshot) not on Debian/Sid [both AMD64 architecture]
On 02/07/10 01:02, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: Hello When building the gcc trunk revision 156557 on Ubuntu lucid AMD64 (the alpha of the next Ubuntu release, which I upgraded just today on Febr 06, 2010), I am getting a repeatable SIGSEGV from genmodes This is very probably an strcmp bug inside Ubuntu/Lucid https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eglibc/+bug/518314 Sorry for the noise. you should be able to build gcc without issues i.g. just built over here(just make sure you have gettext, textinfo, etc.. all build tools); Justin P. Mattock
Re: gcc- 4.6.0 20100416 rtmutex.c:1138:1: internal compiler error
On 04/18/2010 10:35 PM, Ben Gamari wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:19:19 -0700, Justin Mattock wrote: so far I've compiled most of the system (glibc,Xserver,etc..) and not really anything has crashed and burned except for the kernel: You are using a pre-release compiler. It should be no surprise that it chokes on the kernel. You should do as the compiler said and report this to the gcc folks. - Ben I couldn't resist..(had to play), anyways I looked through the reports but didn't see anything that was familiar. so I went and created an entry: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43791 Justin P. Mattock
Re: gcc- 4.6.0 20100416 rtmutex.c:1138:1: internal compiler error
On 04/18/2010 11:57 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: On 04/19/2010 02:43 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote: I couldn't resist..(had to play), anyways I looked through the reports but didn't see anything that was familiar. so I went and created an entry: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43791 Thanks. Please add a preprocessed source file so people can reproduce your issue. as for the preprocessed source file, not that yet skilled at code.(one day) I added my .config, and the CFLAGS I used for building gcc. In regards to 4.6.0 everything seems o.k. i.g. glibc builds with no errors all of the xserver no errors, even firefox builds.. seems the kernel was the only real problem I ran into(which isn't really a problem given this version of gcc is experimental). maybe something todo with building modules (but could be wrong). Justin P. Mattock
Re: gcc- 4.6.0 20100416 rtmutex.c:1138:1: internal compiler error
On 04/19/2010 02:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 19 April 2010 08:20, Justin P. Mattock wrote: On 04/18/2010 11:57 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: On 04/19/2010 02:43 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote: I couldn't resist..(had to play), anyways I looked through the reports but didn't see anything that was familiar. so I went and created an entry: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43791 Thanks. Please add a preprocessed source file so people can reproduce your issue. as for the preprocessed source file, not that yet skilled at code.(one day) See the "how to report" link on the gcc front page: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ It's not hard. the info from jie, worked, as well as: make kernel/rtmutex.i (from joe perches) Justin P. Mattock
Re: Parma Polyhedra Library 0.11
On 08/04/2010 08:43 AM, Roberto Bagnara wrote: The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library. This release has many new features, some of which developed in strict coordination with the people behind GCC/Graphite. The main novelties are: - a class PIP_Problem that provides a Parametric Integer Programming problem solver; - "deterministic" timeout computation facilities; - support for termination analysis via the automatic synthesis of linear ranking functions; - support for approximating computations involving (bounded) machine integers. This release includes several other enhancements, speed improvements and some bug fixes. The precise list of user-visible changes is available at http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.11/NEWS . For more information, please come and visit the PPL web site at http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/ On behalf of all the past and present developers listed at http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Credits/ and in the file CREDITS, Roberto Bagnara Patricia M. Hill Enea Zaffanella Applied Formal Methods Laboratory Department of Mathematics University of Parma, Italy cool.. just downloaded it.. just curious if I need to install ppl and cloog on the system then build gcc? right now with the latest snapshot of gcc, mpfr gmp are in the source tree and build fine but as soon as I add cloog ppl and mpc I crapp out at ppl telling me it cant find gmp keep in mind this is my first attempt to build gcc with all these packages in the source tree of gcc rather than building them separately. Justin P. Mattock
Re: Parma Polyhedra Library 0.11
On 08/04/2010 08:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Roberto Bagnara Patricia M. Hill Enea Zaffanella Applied Formal Methods Laboratory Department of Mathematics University of Parma, Italy cool.. just downloaded it.. just curious if I need to install ppl and cloog on the system then build gcc? right now with the latest snapshot of gcc, mpfr gmp are in the source tree and build fine but as soon as I add cloog ppl and mpc I crapp out at ppl telling me it cant find gmp keep in mind this is my first attempt to build gcc with all these packages in the source tree of gcc rather than building them separately. On a number of occasions I have tried to build ppl and Cloog and watched the process fail repeatedly. I have yet to see it complete with any degree of success. Perhaps this is due to some strange issue with gmp and mpfr header versions and a false error message about libgmp versions is generally seen early in the build process. If this fault in the ppl/cloog code has been fixed then I'll be quite glad to see it. If not then I shall continue to work with GCC without either ppl or cloog as their absence seems to not matter a bit. This is entirely based on my experiences within the Solaris world where we still have issues with the GNU Binutils ld linker also. yeah I ended up fussing around with previous versions but had no luck. after looking through the gcc documentation(don't have the location off hand due to my frenzy for searching for results), but what I noticed is gmp, mpfr, and mpc can be put in the source tree.(only thing it had said with cloog and ppl was to use the --with-cloog/ppl switches). After doing this my build went through and finished. Although seems gcc gets out of whack building a clfs system with two different versions of ppl/cloog(hosts system/new system etc..) figured once im able to boot the fresh system I'll probably rebuild with ppl/cloog added in. Justin P. Mattock
Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/mballoc.c:2993!
On 08/06/2010 11:45 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 10:48:40PM -0700, Justin Mattock wrote: hello, I just built a fresh clfs system using the tutorial.. right now Im able to boot and am able to login, the system seems to be running as it should except for when I try to install gmp and/or do a /sbin/lilo I see a message appear on screen(below) then if I do any kind of command(dmesg> dmesg) I get a stuck screen. has there been anything similar to the below message? keep in mind the kernel I'm using is 2.6.35-rc6 which on other machines(same type of system) run just fine without such message. Um, is this a completely modified 2.6.35-rc6 kernel? The reason why I ask is there is no BUG_ON at line fs/ext4/mballoc.c:2993 for that kernel version. no not modified at all. current git commit: 2.6.35-rc6-00191-ga2dccdb but says 2.6.35-rc6 because git is not installed yet on this system. (I was able to use ohci1394_dma=early to capture this, no ssh yet) There are two BUG_ON statements nearby, but given the line number doesn't match up with either one, it's hard to say for sure which one triggered it. What were the kernel messages right before the BUG_ON? was there a "start N size NNN, fe_logical " (where is some number) right before the "cut here" message? Have you tried forcing an fsck run on the file system to make sure it's not caused by a file-system corruption? before the cut here message I have loads of avc denials from SELinux showing up in the log, after the avc's denials I see this: EXT4-fs (sda3): re-mounted. Opts: errors=remount-ro,user_xattr EXT4-fs (sda3): re-mounted. Opts: errors=remount-ro,user_xattr as for fsck I did not do that, but just saw on a reboot that it had fired off with nothing stating corruption or anything. And have you tried using a standard released gcc so we can determine for sure whether this is a potential kernel bug, file system corruption issue, or gcc issue? - Ted this is strange.. I ended up taking a kernel from another machine(literally the same kernel) loaded it up etc.. after booting up doing /sbin/lilo worked, installing gmp worked.. prior too make install with gmp would trigger this half way through the installation reliably as well as /sbin/lilo, and now nothing of the sort of what I posted. After testing the other machines kernel I recompiled the kernel on the new system rebooted and did those steps to reproduce with nothing of the sort of what I had posted as well. The only thing I can think of is during my building of the system, is maybe this was happening because I built the kernel as root i.e. I usually will chroot towards the end of building a system, build the kernel as root, check the symlinks, configurations, then tar ball the whole thing and transfer, then once booted into the new system, start building everything all over again. as for the gcc version I'm using 4.6.0 20100731 as for this being the culprit.. not sure if building the kernel as root causes gcc to change things with this version of gcc or not.. Right now, as I write things look normal again, I've done /sbin/lilo numerous times with all a success, and built gmp mpfr just to make sure with all being a success. Justin P. Mattock
Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?
On 09/05/2010 08:17 PM, Dennis wrote:
Hi, all,
I'm using gentoo distribution (including gmp/mpfr/mpc) that could compile
gcc-4.5.0, 4.5.1, and many snapshots correctly, including the recent one
gcc-4.5-20100902,
but when I tried to compile gcc-4.6, any snapshot version, even recent
gcc-4.6-20100904,
it always failed, the recent one failure compiling is:
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'grokdeclarator':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:5533: warning: format not a string literal
and no format arguments
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'grokparms':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:6194: warning: format not a string literal
and no format arguments
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025:64: error: macro
"ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" passed 1 arguments, but takes just 0
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'finish_struct':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: 'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type'
undeclared (first use in this function)
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
reported only once
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7025: error: for each function it appears
in.)
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7308:62: error: macro
"ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type" passed 1 arguments, but takes just 0
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c: In function 'finish_enum':
../../gcc-4.6-20100904/gcc/c-decl.c:7308: error: 'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type'
undeclared (first use in this function)
make: *** [c-decl.o] Error 1
I don't know what happened with that? When I search the
'ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type' macro,
it really doesn't exist in the gcc-4.6-20100904 source, nor under /usr/include,
so what is
that macro real dependency? the prerequisites page seems not help me,
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
Who have successfully build gcc-4.6 please help me, or have any clue, I have
searched that ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type
through google, but didn't find out any meaningful results,
please make sure have my email address on cc-list that I can receive your
email, because I didn't subscribe such
high volume mailing list,
Thank you very much,
--
Dennis, from Singapore
hm... an obvious question would be if you have your toolchain correct?
(but you probably do..(I used this to build
4.6.0..:http://cross-lfs.org/view/svn/x86_64-64/))
in your case I see something with lang... maybe your CFLAGS are set
wrong to the wrong machine?! over here my CFLAGS look like this:
CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
-fstack-protector -w" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
keep in mind this is for a intel iMac... your system could be diff..
Justin P. Mattock
