[Pkg-d-devel] Bug#857085: terminix FTBFS on armhf: Error executing /usr/bin/ldc2: Segmentation fault

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Looks like similar to #862360?
According to
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=terminix&arch=armhf
the last 3 failures are only on hartmann

S


Le 23/05/2017 à 10:16, Matthias Klumpp a écrit :
> Cc Sylvestre Ledru as he maintains LLVM and might know best about
> changes done in the LLVM toolchain in Debian.
> 
> I uploaded an LDC to unstable yesterday with no changes but it's LLVM
> dependency changed to build against LLVM 4.0. With that version, the
> bug did not happen at all on the buildds.
> To be really certain it was gone, I used the harris porterbox again to
> see if it compiles the exact version of Terminix correctly now, and
> indeed it does.
> Then, I tried to build Terminix with the exact LDC version from
> Stretch before, and the bug also didn't show (4 builds in a row, just
> to be sure - the bug did *always* happen on harris before). I had a
> manually compiled version of LDC on that machine still, from previous
> attempts to debug the issue, that was compiled with LLVM 3.8 last, and
> building with that also didn't show the bug anymore.
> 
> So, LDC 1.1.1 built with LLVM 3.8, 3.9 and 4.0 in Stretch and Sid does
> not actually show this bug anymore. When jcristau removed LDC from
> Stretch (yes, I am still not happy with the amount of
> non-communication that was going on here!), the copy in there was
> actually already working, because something else in the toolchain
> changed and resolved the issue.
> 
> So, this of course might be a bug in LDC that now just doesn't get
> triggered anymore because something else has changed, but given the
> amount of work put in this bug to find the issue in LDC and the code
> where this bug actually happens in LDC, I think it's justified to
> assume that this is not actually a bug in LDC at all.
> 
> So, what's broken? LLVM 3.9 and 3.8 in Stretch received changes
> lately, but I do fail to see anything in the changelog that would have
> impacted this bug at all:
> 
> ```
> llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-8) unstable; urgency=medium
> 
>   * Really fix "use versioned symbols" for llvm
>     Thanks to Julien Cristau for the patch (Closes: #849098)
> 
>  -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>  Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:10:10 +0200
> 
> llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-7) unstable; urgency=medium
> 
>   * Limit the archs where the ocaml binding is built
>     Should fix the FTBFS
>     Currently amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386
> 
>  -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>  Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:03:30 +0200
> 
> llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-6) unstable; urgency=medium
> 
>   * Upload in unstable
>   * Bring back ocaml. Thanks to Cyril Soldani (Closes: #858626)
> 
>  -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>  Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:02:03 +0200
> 
> llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-6~exp2) experimental; urgency=medium
> 
>   * Add override_dh_makeshlibs for the libllvm or liblldb versions
>     Thanks to Julien Cristau for the patch
>   * change the min version of the libclang1 symbols to 1:3.9.1-6~
>   * Fix the symlink on scan-build-py
> 
>  -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>  Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:32:40 +0200
> 
> llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-6~exp1) experimental; urgency=medium
> 
>   [ Rebecca N. Palmer ]
>   * Allow '!pointer' in OpenCL (Closes: #857623)
>   * Add missing liblldb symlink (Closes: #857683)
>   * Use versioned symbols (Closes: #848368)
> 
>  -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>  Sun, 19 Mar 2017 10:12:03 +0100
> 
> llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-5) unstable; urgency=medium
> 
>   * Fix the incorrect symlink to scan-build-py (Closes: #856869)
> 
>  -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org>  Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:01:10 +0100
> ```
> 
> There were also GCC updates, and quite a bit of other stuff has
> changed as well, but since LDC now compiles the code correctly without
> being recompiled itself, I think it's safe to rule out any bug in GCC
> (as that's only used to build the C++ parts of LDC, and a
> wrong-codegen bug would have persisted in the binaries).
> 
> Not exactly sure where to go from here, but unless some major
> revelation about this bug happens, I am very inclined to just close it
> in a few weeks (and in case something like this happens again, we can
> file a new bug).
> 
> @Sylvestre: I know it's a long shot, but do you maybe know about
> anything in LLVM that could have altered the codegen in any way,
> recently in Stretch? From the changelogs, it doesn't really look like
> it, but maybe I am missing something. Context on this bug:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=857085#41
> 
> Cheers,
>     Matthias
>