Subject: Re: [boost] libstdc++ debug mode
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-30 18:29:43
On 10/30/2016 6:16 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> Back on May 2 2016 I made what I thought was an innocuous change to the
> serialization library build.
> I then forgot about it. I ran my tests and normal on my OSX set up for
> the compilers that I use there - clang and g++ 5.1 in various modes 03,
> 11 etc. Things seemed fine. I uploaded the develop branch as normal.
> Sometime later I discovered that all the gcc tests on linux platforms
> were failing with a segfault. Unfortunately time had passed and I
> couldn't run the tests myself so I never could figure out what the
> breaking change was.
> Lately I separated time to get to the bottom of this and in installed
> via Parallels ubuntu v 14 on my Mac as a guest operating system. After
> the usual back and forth getting stuff to work I was able to reproduce
> the problem. Running gdb indicated that things crashed with a call to
> boost::io::state_saver which led me to investigate THAT library which as
> it turned out is also failing all it's tests on the plaform. So thought
> I - no problem - all I have to do is to complain to the author of that
> library. But this didnt' workout
> a) I posted message and no one responded.
I responded although I am not a maintainer of boost::io::state_saver. I
have subsequently issued a PR to boost::io::state_saver to fix the test
situations where it is failing under gcc and clang.
I have no idea if anyone is maintaining the library. I believe that
Daryle Walker is the original creater of boost::io::state_saver.
> b) I checked trac items and there was what seemed a related item. But
> it seemed a little hard to understand/fix and in any case, no one
> addressing it. I looked into just fixing it myself, but it looked to
> entail delving into the bowels of libstd++. So this dissuaded me as I
> have my own bowels to delve into.
> c) So I commented out references to boost::io::state_saver an ran some
> tests - and damn still failed.
> d) So I rolled back my source to the master dated 24 April 2016 and
> incrementally updated and ran some tests until I found the culprit.
> Needless to say, this is quite a tedious procedure. The issue seems to
> be that I added the following to the jamfile:
> The second adds a lot of checking. commenting this permitted tests to
> pass. Lesson of all this is:
> a) I'm thinking we should run all tests on the deelop branch with
> _GLIBCXX_DEBUG defined. That is, our jam files should contain?:
You did not explain why removing <toolset>gcc:<define>_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
caused your tests to pass.
> b) it looks like when an error in libstd++ is encounted - things just
> segfault. I couldn't find the corresponding source in libstd++. GDB
> just bailed when I made a call to state_saver.
> c) boost::io::state_saver should be maintained.
Agreed. If it is not maintained it either needs for somebody to
volunteer to maintain it or its needs to be added to CMT.
> d) It would be helpful to be able to roll back the test matrix to any
> previous git version. That is, the results would be put into a database
> or datacube and we could scroll back and forth to see track down
> problems in test results.
> Robert Ramey
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk