[0.5.0-rc1] Exception running test backtrace: BoundsError: attempt to access svec()

[petercolberg]

Exception running test backtrace :
On worker 12:
LoadError: BoundsError: attempt to access svec()
  at index [1]
 in macro expansion; at /usr/share/julia/test/backtrace.jl:7 [inlined]
 in anonymous at ./<missing>:?
 in macro expansion at ./util.jl:226 [inlined]
 in runtests at /usr/share/julia/test/testdefs.jl:7
 in #16 at /usr/share/julia/test/runtests.jl:44
 in #503 at ./multi.jl:1410
 in run_work_thunk at ./multi.jl:996
 in macro expansion at ./multi.jl:1410 [inlined]
 in #502 at ./event.jl:46
while loading /usr/share/julia/test/backtrace.jl, in expression starting on line 5

Julia Version 0.5.0-rc1+0
Commit cede539 (2016-08-04 08:48 UTC)
Platform Info:
  System: Linux (x86_64-linux-gnu)
  CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1245 V2 @ 3.40GHz
  WORD_SIZE: 64
  BLAS: libopenblas (NO_LAPACKE DYNAMIC_ARCH NO_AFFINITY Sandybridge)
  LAPACK: libopenblas
  LIBM: libopenlibm
  LLVM: libLLVM-3.8.1 (ORCJIT, ivybridge)

[yuyichao]

What's libunwind version

[petercolberg]

The test suite was run in a pristine Debian unstable chroot using a system-wide installation of julia.

Test-Command: env JULIA_TEST_MAXRSS_MB=500 HOME=/tmp julia --check-bounds=yes --startup-file=no -e "Base.runtests([\"all\"], max(Sys.CPU_CORES, 2))"

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages julia depends on:
ii  libamd2                1:4.5.3-1
ii  libarpack2             3.4.0-1
ii  libc6                  2.23-4
ii  libcamd2               1:4.5.3-1
ii  libcholmod3            1:4.5.3-1
ii  libcolamd2             1:4.5.3-1
ii  libdsfmt-19937-1       2.2.3+dfsg-3
ii  libfftw3-double3       3.3.4-2+b1
ii  libfftw3-single3       3.3.4-2+b1
ii  libgcc1                1:6.1.1-10
ii  libgit2-24             0.24.1-3
ii  libgmp10               2:6.1.1+dfsg-1
ii  libjulia0.5            0.5.0~rc1-1
ii  libmpfr4               3.1.4-2
ii  libopenblas-base       0.2.18-1
ii  libopenlibm2           0.5.1+dfsg-1
ii  libopenspecfun1        0.5.3-1
ii  libpcre2-8-0           10.22-2
ii  libspqr2               1:4.5.3-1
ii  libstdc++6             6.1.1-10
ii  libsuitesparseconfig4  1:4.5.3-1
ii  libumfpack5            1:4.5.3-1

Versions of packages libjulia0.5 depends on:
ii  libarpack2             3.4.0-1
ii  libc6                  2.23-4
ii  libcholmod3            1:4.5.3-1
ii  libdsfmt-19937-1       2.2.3+dfsg-3
ii  libfftw3-double3       3.3.4-2+b1
ii  libfftw3-single3       3.3.4-2+b1
ii  libgcc1                1:6.1.1-10
ii  libgit2-24             0.24.1-3
ii  libgmp10               2:6.1.1+dfsg-1
ii  libllvm3.8             1:3.8.1-5
ii  libmpfr4               3.1.4-2
ii  libopenblas-base       0.2.18-1
ii  libopenlibm2           0.5.1+dfsg-1
ii  libopenspecfun1        0.5.3-1
ii  libpcre2-8-0           10.22-2
ii  libspqr2               1:4.5.3-1
ii  libstdc++6             6.1.1-10
ii  libsuitesparseconfig4  1:4.5.3-1
ii  libumfpack5            1:4.5.3-1
ii  libunwind8             1.1-4.1
ii  libutf8proc2           2.0.2-1

[yuyichao]

I'm not 100% sure for this one but this is certainly backtrace related. Please comment for reopening if this is still happening when the binary is not stripped AND with the git master of libunwind.

[ViralBShah]

In general, debian/ubuntu binaries use too many different versions of dependencies - mainly llvm, which makes it difficult to pinpoint if it is a real issue in the current release of julia or an artefact of incompatible library versions.

[yuyichao]

Newer version of LLVM isn't the biggest issue at this point (assuming it carries all the patch though......). The main issue is actually libunwind version.

This does remind me though that LLVM 3.8/3.8.1 has to be patched or the backtrace will not work.

[petercolberg]

Did you upstream these patches for inclusion into LLVM 3.8.2?

[yuyichao]

They are in LLVM 3.9. My initial patch has some issues and LLVM 3.9 is pretty close so I didn't asked.

[StefanKarpinski]

@yuyichao: did you intend to close this and label is as "needs more info"?

[yuyichao]

It did "need more info", I got those info, closed, and removed the label when I realized I forgot to remove it before the close.

[StefanKarpinski]

Ok, just checking to keep things from falling through the cracks.