New issue 153 by spotrh: Test failures on PPC (Fedora 11, Rawhide)
http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/issues/detail?id=153

 From the ppc failure log:
Fedora 11:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1449784&name=build.log
Fedora 12 (Rawhide):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1450299&name=build.log

While running:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./.libs make check

On ppc, it fails on this test:

...

Obtained 10 stack frames.
Obtained 10 stack frames.
./stacktrace_unittest [0x10000754] 0x10000754
./stacktrace_unittest [0x10000954] 0x10000954
./stacktrace_unittest [0x10000998] 0x10000998
./stacktrace_unittest [0x100009e8] 0x100009e8
./stacktrace_unittest [0x10000a38] 0x10000a38
./stacktrace_unittest [0x10000a88] 0x10000a88
./stacktrace_unittest [0x10000ac4] 0x10000ac4
/lib/libc.so.6 [0xfbbf51c] 0xfbbf51c
/lib/libc.so.6 [0xfbbf6c0] 0xfbbf6c0
[(nil)] (nil)
CheckStackTrace() addr: 0x10000a60
Backtrace 0: expected: 0x10000710..0x10000750  actual: 0x10000754 ... Check
failed: ret_addr <= (void *) ((char *) function_start_addr + kMaxFnLen)
FAIL: stacktrace_unittest

...

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

Comment #1 on issue 153 by csilvers: Test failures on PPC (Fedora 11,  
Rawhide)
http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/issues/detail?id=153

Interesting.  Are the other tests passing?  This test has to make a guess  
how big
each function will be, and may get it wrong on some architectures.

Can you run the test in gdb:
    LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.libs gdb .libs/lt-stacktrace_unittest
or something similar.

You can just put a breakpoint in main, and do something like
    x 0x10000754
what function is it in?  Is it the same function as
   x 0x10000710
?

Likewise for some of the other addresses it prints out (10000954, etc).

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

Comment #2 on issue 153 by spotrh: Test failures on PPC (Fedora 11, Rawhide)
http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/issues/detail?id=153

(gdb) x 0x10000754
0x10000754 <printf>:      0x7fe4fb78
(gdb) x 0x10000710
0x10000710 <_Z19CheckStackTraceLeafv>:    0x9421ffa0
(gdb) x 0x10000954
0x10000954 <_Z16CheckStackTrace4i+36>:    0x37ffffff
(gdb) x 0x10000998
0x10000998 <_Z16CheckStackTrace3i+40>:    0x37ffffff
(gdb) x 0x100009e8
0x100009e8 <_Z16CheckStackTrace2i+40>:    0x37ffffff
(gdb) x 0x10000a38
0x10000a38 <_Z16CheckStackTrace1i+40>:    0x37ffffff
(gdb) x 0x10000a88
0x10000a88 <_Z15CheckStackTracei+40>:     0x37ffffff
(gdb) x 0x10000ac4
0x10000ac4 <printf>:      0x3c801000

And yes, all the other tests pass.

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

Comment #3 on issue 153 by csilvers: Test failures on PPC (Fedora 11,  
Rawhide)
http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/issues/detail?id=153

Weird.  That doesn't seem quite plausible to me that printf is at  
0x10000754.  I
wonder what's going on here.

One more debugging question: can you do
    (gdb) disassemble 0x10000710
and also
    (gdb) disassemble 0x10000754
?

That will tell us how long these functions are, so we can see what's going  
on better.

--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings