From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16181 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2014 14:14:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15805 invoked by uid 48); 5 Aug 2014 14:14:31 -0000 From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug go/60874] FAIL: go.test/test/recover.go execution Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 14:14:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: go X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ian at airs dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60874 --- Comment #7 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak --- (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. >=20 > 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 u= se 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: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: 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" 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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?id=62018 --- Comment #3 from 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?id=62018 > > --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > 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?