-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18k
runtime: corrected issue11656 test fails on ppc64 and mips #43283
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
Comments
Change https://golang.org/cl/279312 mentions this issue: |
For #11656 For #43283 Change-Id: I1fcf2b24800f421e36201af43130b487abe605b1 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/279312 Trust: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> Run-TryBot: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> Run-TryBot: Emmanuel Odeke <emmanuel@orijtech.com> Reviewed-by: Emmanuel Odeke <emmanuel@orijtech.com>
Why does this apply to ppc64 but not ppc64le? |
@laboger I don't know. I haven't looked into it. |
I think what happens is that on machines that the test passes, it faults with SIGSEGV (or maybe SIGBUS) at the CALL instruction when it is jumping to It might be possible to do something for better traceback, for example, if the PC is not in any known function, maybe use the LR? Assume the frame size is 0 and hope for the best? Not sure...
Perhaps the kernel on the AIX builder allows execution on that address whereas the Linux/PPC64LE builder doesn't. |
I think the test only needs to be disabled on aix-ppc64, but it is disabled for aix-ppc64 and linux-ppc64. The failure log posted above is from aix-ppc64. Not a big deal, I just didn't understand why linux-ppc64 and linux-ppc64le would behave differently for this case. |
Change https://golang.org/cl/279423 mentions this issue: |
In https://golang.org/cl/278473 I corrected $GOROOT/test/fixedbugs/issue11656.go to actually test what it was trying to test: executing a trap instruction at a PC value larger than zero. That fix caused the test to fail on:
In each case the test failed reporting
runtime: unknown pc
, which is more or less what the CL in #11656 was supposed to fix.For now I'm going to skip the tests for these targets.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: