From: Jim W. <jw...@dr...> - 2011-11-10 18:37:07
|
I've got some time to look at the CONSing issue on Solaris/x86 (shows up as a memory exhausted error in room.test.sh -- does not affect Solaris/x86-64). This shows up in room.test.sh, but probably isn't directly related to ROOM -- on the other hand, I don't see memory exhausted issues in other tests. Any pointers as to where to start looking, beyond bisecting from the last working revision? Thanks, -- Jim Wise jw...@dr... |
From: Jim W. <jw...@dr...> - 2011-11-11 20:21:12
|
Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> writes: > I've got some time to look at the CONSing issue on Solaris/x86 (shows up > as a memory exhausted error in room.test.sh -- does not affect > Solaris/x86-64). > > This shows up in room.test.sh, but probably isn't directly related to > ROOM -- on the other hand, I don't see memory exhausted issues in other > tests. > > Any pointers as to where to start looking, beyond bisecting from the > last working revision? Following a tip from Bart Botta, I took a look at the following commit: e7b2c507 'more robust backtraces for syscalls on x86' Backing out just this commit does indeed allow room.test.sh to complete, and without any real growth in CONSing visible from invocation to invocation of ROOM. What's the correct fix for this moving forward? Thanks, -- Jim Wise jw...@dr... |
From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2011-11-11 20:44:07
|
Jim Wise <jw...@dr...> writes: > Following a tip from Bart Botta, I took a look at the following commit: > > e7b2c507 'more robust backtraces for syscalls on x86' > > Backing out just this commit does indeed allow room.test.sh to complete, > and without any real growth in CONSing visible from invocation to > invocation of ROOM. > > What's the correct fix for this moving forward? Not sure, but fixing this would probably also fix <https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/870359>... |