[LLVMdev] LLVM on OpenBSD

[Duncan Sands]

Hi,

On Wednesday 18 June 2008 15:08:46 Edd Barrett wrote:
> Holger Schurig wrote:
> >> With 3.3.5 my first test took 5 times to produce a non "bus
> >> error" build. There were no 'make cleans' in between.
> >>
> >> What is going on?
> > 
> > You mean you used your bsd-ports-provided gcc to compile LLVM and 
> > you've got 4 times a bus-error during the build?  In this case, 
> > it cannot be a LLVM problem.
> 
> Ok, to clarify,
> 
> I have tried the OpenBSD provided gcc-3.3.5 (which is considered the
> least buggy version of gcc) and also with gcc-4.2 from ports.
> 
> Sometimes you get a clean build of llvm, sometimes you don't and instead
> get a bus error.

if I understand right the problem is that you are unable to build LLVM
because your system gcc (and another gcc you tried) tends to crash during
the build?

> > In the linux-community, people say that bus-error's are almost 
> > always because of faulty hardware, e.g. problem with DRAM 
> > timing, overheated CPU, power-supply that cannot provide enought 
> > power during current surges, things like that.
> 
> That is one reason a bus error might occur, but my more common
> understanding of a bus error is data not properly aligned with the byte
> boundaries and/or out of range memory at the physical level.
> 
> The machine I am building on is my workstation which I use 9-4.30
> mon-fri. I run all manner of apps without any problems, so if it were
> bad hardware it would have shown itself by now surely.

gcc is however notorious for exposing bad memory problems.

> As a test I got another developer to try on a different machine and he 
> has the same problem. In another test he  also tried a more aggressive 
> malloc.conf (a mechanism which causes malloc to do all sorts of 
> randomisation and page filling to test for memory based bugs) and a 
> completely different error was encountered:
> 
> SelectionDAG.cpp:2602: warning: converting of negative value
> `-1' to `long long

If I understand right, tweaking your system malloc caused the system
gcc to behave differently when compiling LLVM?

> Also we found that without specifying --enable-optimized, the 
> optimisations were still present:
> 
> -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic
> -Wall -W -Wwrite-strings -Wno-long-long -Wunused -Wno-unused-parameter
> -O3

--enable-optimized is not about whether or not compiler optimizations
are performed when building LLVM, it is about whether the built version
of LLVM performs internal checks when run.

Ciao,

Duncan.