[Stackless] Problem building release27-maint in 64-bit linux.
senn at maya.com
Thu Aug 18 15:18:48 CEST 2011
Anselm - can you have a look and see what you think of Alexey's version?
Compare with your earlier proposal? What is you current best version for me to test on OS-X
(preferably w/o the darwin specific compile option which I can't tell if you
thought was necessary or not...)
FWIW: My problem with the 32-bit version does seem to have something to do
with the llvm version of gcc on Lion... putting a useless (but not optimize-away-able)
statement directly after the call to slp_switch that refers to cst and cstprev
causes it to work again... so I suspect either some sort of "bug"
in code generation -- or an optimization that breaks the stack switching...
if this sounds familiar to anyone (before I have time to go rip apart and analyze
the object code -- which will be awhile), please let me know...
On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Estevo <euccastro at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I got the following error trying to make release27-maint in a 64-bit
>> gcc -pthread -c -fno-strict-aliasing -DSTACKLESS_FRHACK=0 -g -O2 -DNDEBUG -g
>> -fwrapv -O3 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -I. -IInclude -I./Include -I./Stackless
>> -DPy_BUILD_CORE -fno-omit-frame-pointer -O2 -I. -o Stackless/core/slp_transfer.o
>> ./Stackless/core/slp_transfer.c: In function ‘slp_transfer’:
>> ./Stackless/core/slp_transfer.c:153:1: error: bp cannot be used in asm here
>> make: *** [Stackless/core/slp_transfer.o] Erro 1
> While working on greenlet and fixing switch-related problems, I found
> that I cornered myself into the same issue with gcc (as opposed to
> llvm-gcc used on OS X Lion). It seems that for whatever reasons gcc
> doesn't allow clobbering rbp when it's using it for referencing stack
> Coincidentally I managed to find a way to correctly save rbp (as well
> as csr and cw), that works and compiles both with and without
> -fomit-frame-pointers. In anyone is interested you can find my
> slp_transfer for amd64 here:
> If anyone can verify it's 100% correct (though redundant), then you
> can maybe use it in stackless too.
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless