Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:35:59 -0700
From:      "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com>
To:        <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Buildworld failure on stable
Message-ID:  <ead689e05e1396523bce9e553b5e93d4@ultimatedns.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150826173846.GE85652@xtaz.uk>
References:  <20150826070125.GA85652@xtaz.uk> <20150826080920.GM3158@zxy.spb.ru> <20150826094829.GB85652@xtaz.uk> <20150826101045.GJ21849@zxy.spb.ru> <20150826112707.GC85652@xtaz.uk>, <20150826173846.GE85652@xtaz.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:38:46 +0100 Matt Smith <fbsd@xtaz.co.uk> wrote

> On Aug 26 12:27, Matt Smith wrote:
> >On Aug 26 13:10, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> >>>>Hardware error or memory exhausted
> >>>
> >>>It does appear to be something along those lines. It's not memory
> >>>exhaustion as it has around 2GB free at the point it fails. However I've
> >>>deleted /usr/obj and started the buildworld again and it failed in a
> >>>different place with the same error. I'm trying it again without -j4 to
> >>>see what happens. But isn't looking too good. :(
> >>
> >>Look like hardware error.
> >>RAM/CPU/MB
> >
> >Interestingly it *always* manages to succesfully compile clang etc and 
> >it has no issues compiling things from ports. It fails compiling 
> >something from lib like openssl or kerberos.  Doesn't buildworld build 
> >a bootstrap version of clang and then use that version to compile the 
> >rest of it? I might try downgrading my sources back to the version 
> >that I last succesfully compiled just to prove it one way or the other 
> >to myself.
> >
> 
> So, been doing some testing. It looks like a -j4 problem with the latest 
> sources. If I buildworld with -j1 then it compiles with no issues at 
> all. If I compile r286908 with -j4 then it compiles with no issues at 
> all. If I try and compile r287155 with -j4 then I get the bus errors. So 
> I'm not convinced at all that it's hardware related at the moment.
Not saying it is. But it still could be a region of CPU cache that
never got exercised, or in the right (same) manner.
Maybe use a CPU/RAM test program, just to be sure?

--Chris
> 
> -- 
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ead689e05e1396523bce9e553b5e93d4>