[Bug go/60874] FAIL: go.test/test/recover.go execution

["ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60874

--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #6)
> I don't know why making the types smaller in comment #4 makes any
> difference.  On a system that does not use split stacks, the runtime will
> allocate a 2M stack for each goroutine (see StackMin in
> libgo/runtime/proc.c).  That is clearly more than large enough to hold a
> 8192 byte value.  The comments in the test about splitting the stack only
> apply to systems that support stack splitting.
> 
> This will need more investigation by somebody with access to an Alpha.  I
> guess one simple first step would be to verify that USING_SPLIT_STACK and
> LINKER_SUPPORTS_SPLIT_STACK are both 0 in the file TARGET/libgo/config.h.

I can verify that they are undefined.

Maybe the effects of split stack can be ruled out on x86 by forcing it to use
libffi closures with non-split stack configuration?
>From gcc-bugs-return-457804-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Aug 05 14:23:06 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-457804-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30048 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2014 14:23:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29993 invoked by uid 55); 5 Aug 2014 14:23:00 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/62018] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/ftrapv-1.c * execution test on x86_64-apple-darwin13
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 14:23:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-62018-4-RSMh3QKh4m@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-62018-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-62018-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2
Content-length: 511

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idb018

--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idb018
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > Can you please investigate a bit yourself?  The test relies on fork()/wait()
> > to work and properly return the exit status of the forked process.
>
> Where should I start?

With a debugger?