Hide Forgot
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801 Description of problem: In a program that spins off a number of threads, where each thread loops a number of times, where each loop throws an exception to be immeadiately caught -- it will randomly abort. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Compile and run the following program: #include <unistd.h> //looking for sleep() #include <pthread.h> extern "C" { void* routine1(void*); } int count; pthread_mutex_t threadControl; pthread_t threadHandles[50]; void* routine1(void *) { pthread_mutex_lock(&threadControl); count++; pthread_mutex_unlock(&threadControl); for (unsigned j=0; j < 3100; j++) { try { if(0) { /*should never get in here*/ } else { throw(j); } } catch( unsigned& j) { /*do nothing*/ } } pthread_mutex_lock(&threadControl); count--; pthread_mutex_unlock(&threadControl); return NULL; } int main() { int thread_cnt = 49; pthread_mutex_lock(&threadControl); count = 0; pthread_mutex_unlock(&threadControl); //spin off 49 threads while(thread_cnt > 0) { pthread_create(threadHandles + 1, 0, routine1, NULL); --thread_cnt; } // wait for all the threads to finish while(count != thread_cnt) { sleep(2); } return 0; } Actual Results: Running this program a number of times will result in an abort in a random iteration of a random thread. Expected Results: Should run to completion with no abort. Additional info: The same program will run successfully on the 32 bit gcc 2.96 compiler.
Are you using the original gcc that shipped with Red HAt Linux 7.1/ia64 or the errata compiler? Have you tried using Red Hat Linux 7.2/ia64?
We are using the original compiler of Redhat 7.1. By "errata compiler", are you referring to the ia64 specific patches found in the 2001-10-19 glibc-common (RHBA-2001-121) GNU C Library bugfix update found on http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/rh71-errata.html? If not, could you point out where I might find it? Thanks for responding, Dave
My mistake, there has not been an errata compiler release for Red Hat Linux 7.1 on the Itanium platform. The gcc engineers are looking into this problem.
We are moving ahead with installing and supporting Redhat 7.2. I will let you know if the newer compiler fixes this mt problem. Dave
We have installed Redhat 7.2 and the test case still fails. Please let us know if there will be a public patch provided for this problem. It will have direct bearing on our ability to support multithreaded builds on this platform.
The following patch should fix it: 2002-03-13 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> * config/ia64/frame-ia64.c (execute_one_ia64_descriptor): Don't use static variables. (__build_ia64_frame_state): Add automatic region_header variable, initialize it and pass address of it to execute_one_ia64_descriptor. --- gcc/config/ia64/frame-ia64.c.jj Wed Mar 13 14:18:10 2002 +++ gcc/config/ia64/frame-ia64.c Wed Mar 13 15:42:13 2002 @@ -650,20 +650,18 @@ init_ia64_unwind_frame (frame) the return value is a pointer to the start of the next descriptor. */ static void * -execute_one_ia64_descriptor (addr, frame, len) +execute_one_ia64_descriptor (addr, frame, len, header) void *addr; ia64_frame_state *frame; long *len; + unwind_record *header; { unwind_record r; - /* The last region_header. Needed to distinguish between prologue and body - descriptors. Also needed for length of P4 format. */ - static unwind_record region_header; ia64_reg_loc *loc_ptr = NULL; int grmask = 0, frmask = 0; *len = -1; - addr = get_unwind_record (®ion_header, &r, addr); + addr = get_unwind_record (header, &r, addr); /* Process it in 2 phases, the first phase will either do the work, or set up a pointer to the records we care about @@ -674,7 +672,7 @@ execute_one_ia64_descriptor (addr, frame case prologue: case body: *len = r.record.r.rlen; - memcpy (®ion_header, &r, sizeof (unwind_record)); + memcpy (header, &r, sizeof (unwind_record)); break; case prologue_gr: { @@ -707,7 +705,7 @@ execute_one_ia64_descriptor (addr, frame frame->pr.loc_type = IA64_UNW_LOC_TYPE_GR; frame->pr.l.regno = reg++; } - memcpy (®ion_header, &r, sizeof (unwind_record)); + memcpy (header, &r, sizeof (unwind_record)); break; } case mem_stack_f: @@ -1263,6 +1261,7 @@ __build_ia64_frame_state (pc, frame, bsp void *pc_base; int pc_offset; struct unwind_info_ptr *unw_info_ptr; + unwind_record region_header; entry = find_fde (pc, &pc_base); if (!entry) @@ -1277,6 +1276,7 @@ __build_ia64_frame_state (pc, frame, bsp init_ia64_unwind_frame (frame); frame->my_bsp = bsp; frame->my_sp = sp; + region_header.type = prologue; /* Stop when we get to the end of the descriptor list, or if we encounter a region whose initial offset is already past the @@ -1285,7 +1285,7 @@ __build_ia64_frame_state (pc, frame, bsp while (addr < end && pc_offset > region_offset) { /* First one must be a record header. */ - addr = execute_one_ia64_descriptor (addr, frame, &len); + addr = execute_one_ia64_descriptor (addr, frame, &len, ®ion_header); if (len > 0) { region_offset += last_region_size; I'll build gcc-2.96-107 later tonight. Note that this file has been removed shortly before gcc 3.0 was released, so this is not relevant to 3.0.x or 3.1.
Hello, This is great news. I have some questions about availablity. Will we have to wait for the next rev of the RedHat Installation package (7.3?) to see the fix for this multithreaded issue? Or can one download the next "fixed" compiler? If we can get the "fixed", what version would it be (gcc-2.96-107?) and when would it be available? We are interested in providing our customers support for multithreaded builds as soon as possible. Please let us know about when and how your support for this multithread capable ia64 compiler will be available. Thanks for your help in this matter, Dave
An errata has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2002-055.html