You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(152) |
Dec
(69) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(73) |
Apr
(82) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(25) |
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(203) |
Dec
(182) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(307) |
Feb
(305) |
Mar
(430) |
Apr
(312) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(342) |
Jul
(487) |
Aug
(637) |
Sep
(336) |
Oct
(373) |
Nov
(441) |
Dec
(210) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(385) |
Feb
(480) |
Mar
(636) |
Apr
(544) |
May
(679) |
Jun
(625) |
Jul
(810) |
Aug
(838) |
Sep
(634) |
Oct
(521) |
Nov
(965) |
Dec
(543) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(494) |
Feb
(431) |
Mar
(546) |
Apr
(411) |
May
(406) |
Jun
(322) |
Jul
(256) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(345) |
Oct
(542) |
Nov
(308) |
Dec
(481) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(427) |
Feb
(326) |
Mar
(367) |
Apr
(255) |
May
(244) |
Jun
(204) |
Jul
(223) |
Aug
(231) |
Sep
(354) |
Oct
(374) |
Nov
(497) |
Dec
(362) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(322) |
Feb
(482) |
Mar
(658) |
Apr
(422) |
May
(476) |
Jun
(396) |
Jul
(455) |
Aug
(267) |
Sep
(280) |
Oct
(253) |
Nov
(232) |
Dec
(304) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(486) |
Feb
(470) |
Mar
(458) |
Apr
(423) |
May
(696) |
Jun
(461) |
Jul
(551) |
Aug
(575) |
Sep
(134) |
Oct
(110) |
Nov
(157) |
Dec
(102) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(226) |
Feb
(86) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(117) |
May
(107) |
Jun
(203) |
Jul
(193) |
Aug
(238) |
Sep
(300) |
Oct
(246) |
Nov
(23) |
Dec
(75) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(133) |
Feb
(195) |
Mar
(315) |
Apr
(200) |
May
(267) |
Jun
(293) |
Jul
(353) |
Aug
(237) |
Sep
(278) |
Oct
(611) |
Nov
(274) |
Dec
(260) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(303) |
Feb
(391) |
Mar
(417) |
Apr
(441) |
May
(488) |
Jun
(655) |
Jul
(590) |
Aug
(610) |
Sep
(526) |
Oct
(478) |
Nov
(359) |
Dec
(372) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(467) |
Feb
(226) |
Mar
(391) |
Apr
(281) |
May
(299) |
Jun
(252) |
Jul
(311) |
Aug
(352) |
Sep
(481) |
Oct
(571) |
Nov
(222) |
Dec
(231) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(185) |
Feb
(329) |
Mar
(245) |
Apr
(238) |
May
(281) |
Jun
(399) |
Jul
(382) |
Aug
(500) |
Sep
(579) |
Oct
(435) |
Nov
(487) |
Dec
(256) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(338) |
Feb
(357) |
Mar
(330) |
Apr
(294) |
May
(191) |
Jun
(108) |
Jul
(142) |
Aug
(261) |
Sep
(190) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(83) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(49) |
Feb
(89) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(50) |
May
(27) |
Jun
(34) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(98) |
Oct
(206) |
Nov
(93) |
Dec
(53) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(82) |
Mar
(102) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(67) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(93) |
Sep
(65) |
Oct
(45) |
Nov
(35) |
Dec
(17) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(26) |
Feb
(35) |
Mar
(38) |
Apr
(32) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(43) |
Jul
(27) |
Aug
(30) |
Sep
(43) |
Oct
(42) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(67) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(32) |
Feb
(37) |
Mar
(53) |
Apr
(64) |
May
(49) |
Jun
(18) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(30) |
Nov
(49) |
Dec
(31) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(87) |
Feb
(45) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(51) |
May
(99) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(14) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(24) |
Nov
(40) |
Dec
(23) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(53) |
Mar
(85) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(57) |
Oct
(73) |
Nov
(56) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(22) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(55) |
May
(46) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(34) |
Nov
(20) |
Dec
(36) |
| 2023 |
Jan
(79) |
Feb
(41) |
Mar
(99) |
Apr
(169) |
May
(48) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(16) |
Aug
(57) |
Sep
(19) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
(1) |
3
|
|
4
|
5
(1) |
6
(2) |
7
(1) |
8
(1) |
9
(2) |
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
(6) |
14
(4) |
15
(1) |
16
(4) |
17
(2) |
|
18
(1) |
19
(8) |
20
(8) |
21
(2) |
22
(3) |
23
(3) |
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
(1) |
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
(2) |
|
From: João M. S. S. <joa...@gm...> - 2019-08-22 10:08:17
|
And I tried to unlimit the stack size already.
João M. S. Silva
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:02 AM João M. S. Silva
<joa...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I forgot they were arrays of double.
> But the error I get is with the original program, not the test case.
> I'm still trying to understand where does it come from with the help of Adacore.
> João M. S. Silva
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:58 AM Philippe Waroquiers
> <phi...@sk...> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 14:47 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > On 20/08/2019 14:40, João M. S. Silva wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > I was using this before:
> > > >
> > > > #include <stdio.h>
> > > >
> > > > #define G 1<<30
> > > >
> > > > int main() {
> > > > double w[G];
> > > > double x[G];
> > > > double y[G];
> > > > double z[G];
> > > >
> > > > printf("w[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > > > printf("x[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > > > printf("y[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > > > printf("z[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > > >
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I used the printf's in case the arrays were being removed by optimisation.
> > >
> > > That is putting the arrays on the stack, which is completely different.
> > >
> > > > > Nothing to do with Ada at all.
> > > >
> > > > When I mentioned Ada's elaboration I was referring to the other error
> > > > I'm getting now:
> > > >
> > > > ==4925== Warning: set address range perms: large range [0xaef000,
> > > > 0x13ef3000) (defined)
> > > > ==4925==
> > > > ==4925== Process terminating with default action of signal 6 (SIGABRT)
> > > > ==4925== at 0x16592207: raise (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x16593A37: abort (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x16354E90: uw_init_context_1 (unwind-dw2.c:1580)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x16355A17: _Unwind_Backtrace (unwind.inc:283)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x816280: __gnat_backtrace (in
> > > > /u/wh/rel/ifaplrel/pw_fwp_engine.eab)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x80BE7C: system__traceback__call_chain__2 (s-traceb.adb:93)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x80BEA4: system__traceback__call_chain (s-traceb.adb:109)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x7FCCE9: ada__exceptions__call_chain (a-excach.adb:65)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x7FCE3C: ada__exceptions__complete_occurrence (a-except.adb:928)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x7FCE6C:
> > > > ada__exceptions__complete_and_propagate_occurrence (a-except.adb:942)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x7FD209: ada__exceptions__raise_with_location_and_msg
> > > > (a-except.adb:1168)
> > > > ==4925== by 0x7FD1C4: __gnat_raise_storage_error_msg (a-except.adb:1145)
> > > >
> > > > and that I mentioned yesterday.
> > >
> > > That's a completely different issue by the looks of it.
> > Yes.
> > And that one is very probably caused by too much on the stack:
> > The above small C code declares 4 arrays, each 8 Gb if I am not wrong.
> > I doubt the stack size is configured to allow 32 Gb of stack, and so
> > it looks completely normal to have a storage error.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> >
|
|
From: João M. S. S. <joa...@gm...> - 2019-08-22 10:03:13
|
Yes, I forgot they were arrays of double.
But the error I get is with the original program, not the test case.
I'm still trying to understand where does it come from with the help of Adacore.
João M. S. Silva
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:58 AM Philippe Waroquiers
<phi...@sk...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 14:47 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 20/08/2019 14:40, João M. S. Silva wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > I was using this before:
> > >
> > > #include <stdio.h>
> > >
> > > #define G 1<<30
> > >
> > > int main() {
> > > double w[G];
> > > double x[G];
> > > double y[G];
> > > double z[G];
> > >
> > > printf("w[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > > printf("x[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > > printf("y[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > > printf("z[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > I used the printf's in case the arrays were being removed by optimisation.
> >
> > That is putting the arrays on the stack, which is completely different.
> >
> > > > Nothing to do with Ada at all.
> > >
> > > When I mentioned Ada's elaboration I was referring to the other error
> > > I'm getting now:
> > >
> > > ==4925== Warning: set address range perms: large range [0xaef000,
> > > 0x13ef3000) (defined)
> > > ==4925==
> > > ==4925== Process terminating with default action of signal 6 (SIGABRT)
> > > ==4925== at 0x16592207: raise (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> > > ==4925== by 0x16593A37: abort (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> > > ==4925== by 0x16354E90: uw_init_context_1 (unwind-dw2.c:1580)
> > > ==4925== by 0x16355A17: _Unwind_Backtrace (unwind.inc:283)
> > > ==4925== by 0x816280: __gnat_backtrace (in
> > > /u/wh/rel/ifaplrel/pw_fwp_engine.eab)
> > > ==4925== by 0x80BE7C: system__traceback__call_chain__2 (s-traceb.adb:93)
> > > ==4925== by 0x80BEA4: system__traceback__call_chain (s-traceb.adb:109)
> > > ==4925== by 0x7FCCE9: ada__exceptions__call_chain (a-excach.adb:65)
> > > ==4925== by 0x7FCE3C: ada__exceptions__complete_occurrence (a-except.adb:928)
> > > ==4925== by 0x7FCE6C:
> > > ada__exceptions__complete_and_propagate_occurrence (a-except.adb:942)
> > > ==4925== by 0x7FD209: ada__exceptions__raise_with_location_and_msg
> > > (a-except.adb:1168)
> > > ==4925== by 0x7FD1C4: __gnat_raise_storage_error_msg (a-except.adb:1145)
> > >
> > > and that I mentioned yesterday.
> >
> > That's a completely different issue by the looks of it.
> Yes.
> And that one is very probably caused by too much on the stack:
> The above small C code declares 4 arrays, each 8 Gb if I am not wrong.
> I doubt the stack size is configured to allow 32 Gb of stack, and so
> it looks completely normal to have a storage error.
>
> Philippe
>
>
|
|
From: Philippe W. <phi...@sk...> - 2019-08-22 09:59:04
|
On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 14:47 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 20/08/2019 14:40, João M. S. Silva wrote:
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > I was using this before:
> >
> > #include <stdio.h>
> >
> > #define G 1<<30
> >
> > int main() {
> > double w[G];
> > double x[G];
> > double y[G];
> > double z[G];
> >
> > printf("w[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > printf("x[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > printf("y[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> > printf("z[1000] = %d\n", w[1000]);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > I used the printf's in case the arrays were being removed by optimisation.
>
> That is putting the arrays on the stack, which is completely different.
>
> > > Nothing to do with Ada at all.
> >
> > When I mentioned Ada's elaboration I was referring to the other error
> > I'm getting now:
> >
> > ==4925== Warning: set address range perms: large range [0xaef000,
> > 0x13ef3000) (defined)
> > ==4925==
> > ==4925== Process terminating with default action of signal 6 (SIGABRT)
> > ==4925== at 0x16592207: raise (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> > ==4925== by 0x16593A37: abort (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> > ==4925== by 0x16354E90: uw_init_context_1 (unwind-dw2.c:1580)
> > ==4925== by 0x16355A17: _Unwind_Backtrace (unwind.inc:283)
> > ==4925== by 0x816280: __gnat_backtrace (in
> > /u/wh/rel/ifaplrel/pw_fwp_engine.eab)
> > ==4925== by 0x80BE7C: system__traceback__call_chain__2 (s-traceb.adb:93)
> > ==4925== by 0x80BEA4: system__traceback__call_chain (s-traceb.adb:109)
> > ==4925== by 0x7FCCE9: ada__exceptions__call_chain (a-excach.adb:65)
> > ==4925== by 0x7FCE3C: ada__exceptions__complete_occurrence (a-except.adb:928)
> > ==4925== by 0x7FCE6C:
> > ada__exceptions__complete_and_propagate_occurrence (a-except.adb:942)
> > ==4925== by 0x7FD209: ada__exceptions__raise_with_location_and_msg
> > (a-except.adb:1168)
> > ==4925== by 0x7FD1C4: __gnat_raise_storage_error_msg (a-except.adb:1145)
> >
> > and that I mentioned yesterday.
>
> That's a completely different issue by the looks of it.
Yes.
And that one is very probably caused by too much on the stack:
The above small C code declares 4 arrays, each 8 Gb if I am not wrong.
I doubt the stack size is configured to allow 32 Gb of stack, and so
it looks completely normal to have a storage error.
Philippe
|