[gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Frank Schafer]

Hello,

this bug is from 2005-02-05. It was reported again (in this thread)
2005-02-10. I hit the same behavior 2005-09-08.

internal compiler error: segmentation fault during emerge Xorg

The bug is simply reproducible (emerge Xorg) at the same line of code.

The bug is still marked as NEW. Donnie Berkholz replied 2005-02-10 with:
"Could you humor me and try with a vanilla kernel?"

My questions here: Does someone have a look at this? I think a not
installable Xorg is severe enough to mark it as CRITICAL.

Does someone know if it's worth a try with the vanilla and if vanilla
here means a really vanilla from kernel.org or if it's sufficient to get
the (too patched and thus not so vanilla) vanilla-sources.

Please be kind with me regarding to the fact that I'm posting here. On
the gentoo mailing list I get only replies like: "You probably have
faulty memory." If THIS would be the fact the bug would show up randomly
in different ebuilds or at least at different lines of code.

Thanks in advance for every hint
Frank

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2259 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:24:38PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> this bug is from 2005-02-05. It was reported again (in this thread)
> 2005-02-10. I hit the same behavior 2005-09-08.
> 
> internal compiler error: segmentation fault during emerge Xorg
> 
> The bug is simply reproducible (emerge Xorg) at the same line of code.
> 
> The bug is still marked as NEW. Donnie Berkholz replied 2005-02-10 with:
> "Could you humor me and try with a vanilla kernel?"
> 
> My questions here: Does someone have a look at this? I think a not
> installable Xorg is severe enough to mark it as CRITICAL.
> 
> Does someone know if it's worth a try with the vanilla and if vanilla
> here means a really vanilla from kernel.org or if it's sufficient to get
> the (too patched and thus not so vanilla) vanilla-sources.
> 
> Please be kind with me regarding to the fact that I'm posting here. On
> the gentoo mailing list I get only replies like: "You probably have
> faulty memory." If THIS would be the fact the bug would show up randomly
> in different ebuilds or at least at different lines of code.

Granted Donnie is a miserable so and so, but his advice is 
accurate.

To get an ICE (what you're getting) requires either
1) faulty hardware.  proc going nuts, mem going nuts
2) faulty kernel
3) faulty toolchain

Reproducability of a failure across reboots kind of indicates 1 as not 
being the case, leaving 2, and 3.

ICE's are pretty much *never* the fault of the source; the source may 
expose a toolchain bug, but it's not the sources fault.  

You don't blame an email for crashing your email client, you blame your 
email client for horking up and segfaulting, instead of gracefully 
failing in the face of potentially wrong input.

Note I'm not stating the source is the fault here, just trying to 
clarify that ICE's pretty much are indicative of 
hardware/kernel/toolchain being nuts, not the source that's being 
compiled.

So... try his suggestion.  Yes it's annoying, but frankly addressing 
your issues here pretty much requires poking at the options above, 
seeing if one of them makes compilation stop ICE'ing.  If it does, 
then you back track and figure out what changed... etc.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Daniel Drake]

Frank Schafer wrote:
> Does someone know if it's worth a try with the vanilla and if vanilla
> here means a really vanilla from kernel.org or if it's sufficient to get
> the (too patched and thus not so vanilla) vanilla-sources.

vanilla-sources is not patched.

> Please be kind with me regarding to the fact that I'm posting here. On
> the gentoo mailing list I get only replies like: "You probably have
> faulty memory." If THIS would be the fact the bug would show up randomly
> in different ebuilds or at least at different lines of code.

Faulty hardware can cause all kinds of unexplainable behaviour. Don't base 
your judgement on this.

One final point, if you are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try 
turning off vesafb-tng for now.

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Ivan Yosifov]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try 
> turning off vesafb-tng 

Why ?

-- 
Cheers,
Ivan Yosifov.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Daniel Drake]

Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 
>>are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try 
>>turning off vesafb-tng 
> 
> 
> Why ?
> 

Actually, this shouldn't matter, as this only occurs with 64gb highmem. I only 
mentioned it as this is the only "random crasher" Gentoo kernel bug that we've 
had recently:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101359

Actually, there are also some upstream x86_64 issues. Frank, are you on amd64?

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Frank Schafer]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:14 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > 
> >>are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try 
> >>turning off vesafb-tng 
> > 
> > 
> > Why ?
> > 
> 
> Actually, this shouldn't matter, as this only occurs with 64gb highmem. I only 
> mentioned it as this is the only "random crasher" Gentoo kernel bug that we've 
> had recently:
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101359
> 
> Actually, there are also some upstream x86_64 issues. Frank, are you on amd64?
> 
> Daniel

I'm still on the kernel from the life-cd. The self compiled kernel has
the highmem option set to off (I have only 1GB). I'm on x86 Intel
Celeron M and have CHOST set to i686-pc-linux-gnu and CFLAGS="-O2
-march=pentium2"

I've unset nearly everything in USE to get a running minimal system (91
packages). Let's see first if X builds without any acceleration, DRI,
GLX and so on.

I'll let you know all and every of my results. Be patient, my time is
limited so I can't deliver a result every day.

Regards
Frank

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Richard Fish]

Frank Schafer wrote:

>I'm still on the kernel from the life-cd. The self compiled kernel has
>the highmem option set to off (I have only 1GB). I'm on x86 Intel
>Celeron M and have CHOST set to i686-pc-linux-gnu and CFLAGS="-O2
>-march=pentium2"
>  
>

Um, why pentium2?  The Celeron-M is the same core as a Pentium-M with 
less cache and lower clock speeds, so it seems to me that your -march 
should really be pentium-m.

Anyway, I'll be back on gentoo-user if you want to discuss this thread 
more there.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 304 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 17:01 +0300, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:52 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then try 
> > turning off vesafb-tng 
> 
> Why ?
Because of known bugs I'd guess?
-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug 80905

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 15:52, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Frank Schafer wrote:
> > Does someone know if it's worth a try with the vanilla and if vanilla
> > here means a really vanilla from kernel.org or if it's sufficient to
> > get the (too patched and thus not so vanilla) vanilla-sources.
>
> vanilla-sources is not patched.
>
> > Please be kind with me regarding to the fact that I'm posting here.
> > On the gentoo mailing list I get only replies like: "You probably
> > have faulty memory." If THIS would be the fact the bug would show up
> > randomly in different ebuilds or at least at different lines of code.
>
> Faulty hardware can cause all kinds of unexplainable behaviour. Don't
> base your judgement on this.
>
> One final point, if you are running vesafb-tng and have >=1GB RAM then
> try turning off vesafb-tng for now.

You might also take a look at bug #20600 for an overview of all kinds of 
ICE errors.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]