New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
all: build failing on plan9/amd64 #41137
Comments
The last successful run I see on the dashboard is from CL 241275, back on 13 July 2020. It's not clear to me whether the failures since then are due to a problem with the builder or a regression in the Go toolchain itself. |
(And the builder was often very flaky even before then. If we want this configuration to stay green, we really need the builder to be up and completing CLs reliably...) |
This one isn't an issue with the builder, but a regression in the Go toolchain. |
Did some bisection: I suspect that the issue is in a9a1217 Current HEAD is fine after reverting with:
|
@cherrymui : currently trying to understand exactly what's going on in this change and why it breaks in 9front. |
Thanks for the report and investigation. CL https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/261644 should fix this. |
Change https://golang.org/cl/261644 mentions this issue: |
Awesome -- thanks! The fix mostly makes sense to me, though I wonder why Plan 9 needs the symbol rounded up. |
On Plan 9 AMD64, the function alignment is 32 (as of all AMD64 platforms), the header size is 40, and FlagTextAddr = 0x200000 + size(header) is not aligned with function alignment, so we round up before laying out the first function. This is specific to Plan 9 AMD64 (not 386 or ARM). |
plan9/amd64 build has been failing for a while now. Example builder failure: https://build.golang.org/log/47e948a0c5cefb99a35446a0e1dda27ef7b818c5. It's also failing for me locally on my machine.
What version of Go are you using (
go version
)?master: ba0fab3
What did you do?
What did you expect to see?
Successful build
What did you see instead?
@gopherbot add labels OS-Plan9, NeedsInvestigation
/CC @0intro
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: