[fpc-devel] Re: fpc build problems on some debian armel buildds

[peter green]

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Riku Voipio wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:33:36PM +0100, peter green wrote:
>>> The current FPC package builds fine in qemu for me. I will attempt 
>>> to  try on some real hardware too when I get a chance.
>>
>> Qemu allows unaligned memory accesses, which do not always work on real
>> hardware, especially on armv5 and other older arms.
>>
>>> Is there a list anywhere of what hardware the buildds run on and/or 
>>> any  other interesting information about their setups so I can try 
>>> to figure  out what if anything the failing buildds have in common. 
>>> Has anything  changed in ancina's configuration recently?
>>
>> All currently running armel buildd's are identical marvell mv78x00 
>> boards. Updates on ancina are the regular "apt-get upgrades" to get 
>> latest toolchain
>> etc in sid.
>
> There were issues with some versions of FPC, related to more than a 
> certain number of parameters (four?) being passed. Jonas wrote the 
> following on the 5th October last year:
Do you know if that fix has made it into any stable releases and if so 
which ones?
> -----8<-----
> On 05 Oct 2010, at 10:05, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>
> > When running 2.4.0 on an ARM system (Debian v5 "Lenny", armel) with
> > limited memory (32Mb RAM + 768Mb swap) and using it to compile a large
> > project (Lazarus 0.9.28.2) I'm seeing intermittent failures which go
> > away if the make is restarted. I've not seen this running on other
> > platforms, and I don't believe it is a problem in the Lazarus sources
> > since the build will eventually complete giving me runnable code.
>
> A couple of days ago I fixed an error in svn trunk for ARMEL that 
> caused the stack to become temporarily unbalanced after performing 
> syscalls with 5 or more parameters (the bug is still there for OABI, 
> but I can't fix that because I don't have access to an OABI machine).
>
> A side-effect of that bug was that if the caller passed the address of 
> its own result as one of the parameters to the system call, it would 
> afterwards return a random value as its result and checks for error 
> results caused random failures like the one you posted (the 
> reproducible case that allowed me to fix it was a similar error).
>
> Jonas
> ----->8-----
>
> There might be alignment issues on ARM and SPARC but I've only seen 
> those with Lazarus, not with FPC itself.
>