Re: glibc 2.28 autopkgtest failures
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 13:26, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
> tl;dr we should force things through :)
>
> There are at the time of writing two autopkgtest failures preventing glibc
> from migrating: r-cran-rgenoud and python-cffi
>
> The r-cran-genoud failure is mystifying in that I have no idea how the
> glibc version is affecting the package (it doesn't call many libc or libm
> functions!). I've spent far too long trying on this but as the package has
> no rdeps we should probably just remove it and whoever brings it back can
> try to understand why it changes behaviour with new libc. (The test also
> looks a bit fragile, it is asserting that optimizing a particular function
> with the rng seeded a particular way finds a different maxima to seeding
> the rng a different way, afaict).
>
> The python-cffi is exposing a bug that exists already. A minimal failing
> example is this:
>
[...]
> The bug is that when you lie to cffi about the return type of a variable,
> in particular when you say a function returning a float does not return a
> float, the x87 stack is not wiped to the extent required by the calling
> convention. glibc 2.28 rewrote the cos function in a way that apparently
> now cares about this (or I guess gcc now compiles the function in a way
> that cares about this) but make no mistake, it only ever worked by chance
> before. So I think the test_sin_no_return_value test should be skipped on
> i386.
>
Unfortunately, python-cffi is now failing to build on ppc64el. Code like
this (where "source" is a double and target is a valid pointer):
float r = (float)source;
memcpy(target, &r, sizeof(float));
is getting compiled into code which doesn't call frsp (round to single
precision), which seems very wrong to me. It works if you compile it with
gcc-7 or with gcc-8 and no optimization. I've managed to reproduce it like
this:
(cosmic-ppc64el)root@diamond:/# cat u.c
#include
#include
#include
#include
char buf[4];
void write(double x) {
float y = (float)x;
memcpy(buf, &y, 4);
}
float read(void) {
float r;
memcpy(&r, buf, 4);
return r;
}
int main(int argc, char**argv) {
double x;
x = strtod(argv[1], NULL);
write(x);
printf("%g\n", (double)read());
return 0;
}
(cosmic-ppc64el)root@diamond:/# gcc -fno-inline -O1 -o u u.c
(cosmic-ppc64el)root@diamond:/# ./u 1e200
2.19181e+07
and unless someone can see something wrong in my C code, this looks like a
compiler bug :(
Cheers,
mwh
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: glibc 2.28 autopkgtest failures
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 13:26, Michael Hudson-Doyle < michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote: > The bug is that when you lie to cffi about the return type of a variable, > in particular when you say a function returning a float does not return a > float, the x87 stack is not wiped to the extent required by the calling > convention. glibc 2.28 rewrote the cos function in a way that apparently > now cares about this (or I guess gcc now compiles the function in a way > that cares about this) but make no mistake, it only ever worked by chance > before. So I think the test_sin_no_return_value test should be skipped on > i386. (I'll file an upstream issue I guess). > https://bitbucket.org/cffi/cffi/issues/382/test_sin_no_return_value-violates-calling > Cheers, > mwh > -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
glibc 2.28 autopkgtest failures
tl;dr we should force things through :)
There are at the time of writing two autopkgtest failures preventing glibc
from migrating: r-cran-rgenoud and python-cffi
The r-cran-genoud failure is mystifying in that I have no idea how the
glibc version is affecting the package (it doesn't call many libc or libm
functions!). I've spent far too long trying on this but as the package has
no rdeps we should probably just remove it and whoever brings it back can
try to understand why it changes behaviour with new libc. (The test also
looks a bit fragile, it is asserting that optimizing a particular function
with the rng seeded a particular way finds a different maxima to seeding
the rng a different way, afaict).
The python-cffi is exposing a bug that exists already. A minimal failing
example is this:
root@cosmic32:~# cat n.py
import math
from cffi.backend_ctypes import CTypesBackend
from cffi import FFI
ffi = FFI(backend=CTypesBackend())
ffi.cdef(""" void fabs(double x); """)
ffi.dlopen('m').fabs(1.0)
print(math.cos(1.23))
root@cosmic32:~# python3 n.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "n.py", line 7, in
print(math.cos(1.23))
ValueError: math domain error
The bug is that when you lie to cffi about the return type of a variable,
in particular when you say a function returning a float does not return a
float, the x87 stack is not wiped to the extent required by the calling
convention. glibc 2.28 rewrote the cos function in a way that apparently
now cares about this (or I guess gcc now compiles the function in a way
that cares about this) but make no mistake, it only ever worked by chance
before. So I think the test_sin_no_return_value test should be skipped on
i386. (I'll file an upstream issue I guess).
Cheers,
mwh
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
