Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:07:22 +0200 From: Patrick Lamaiziere <patfbsdp@davenulle.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Smarteiffel is marked broken but is not (maybe!) Message-ID: <20071020150722.66adab5e@roxette.lamaiziere.net> In-Reply-To: <47154405.3030106@FreeBSD.org> References: <20071014223933.27730098@roxette.lamaiziere.net> <4712B1D4.4000108@FreeBSD.org> <20071016221808.43b7f702@roxette.lamaiziere.net> <47151EA4.80605@FreeBSD.org> <20071017000758.3ff8cf1f@roxette.lamaiziere.net> <47154405.3030106@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:06:45 +0200, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> : Hello, > > I compiled the install program with full assertions and it crashs > > with a run-time stack dump. Looking the code it seems related to the > > memory management by SmartEiffel (it is not good because there is a > > garbage collector). So may be it is broken. I was wrong, this is because a stupid bug when assertions are on. I'm the first one who tried it with full assertions ON... > > I will check it with FreeBSD 6.2 and another C compiler and try to > > get more informations. > > Try building it "normally" but with MALLOC_OPTIONS=AJ. This is > enabled for port builds (and by default in CURRENT) and sometimes > catches application bugs. No it does not change anything. I don't know why it failed on the tinderbox and i can't reproduce this problem. SmartEiffel is marked broken since july, can it be only a temporary problem during the evolution of CURRENT ? Regards.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071020150722.66adab5e>