Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix function call to rec_backtrace_ctx when using USE_SYSTEM_LIBUNWIND=1 #36821

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix function call to rec_backtrace_ctx when using USE_SYSTEM_LIBUNWIND=1 #36821

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

rbvermaa
Copy link
Contributor

When building julia-1.5.0-rc1 from source, we ran into the following error. It looks like one call to rec_backtrace_ctx was not changed when an extra arg was added.

Not 100% this patch is correct (whether to pass 1 for the lockless argument), but it does fix the compilation error, and is similar to the other branch of the ifndef.

In file included from /private/tmp/nix-build-julia-1.5.0-rc1-patched.drv-0/source/src/signal-handling.c:117:
In file included from ./signals-unix.c:218:
./signals-mach.c:462:135: error: too few arguments to function call, expected 5, have 4
                bt_size_cur += rec_backtrace_ctx((jl_bt_element_t*)bt_data_prof + bt_size_cur, bt_size_max - bt_size_cur - 1, uc, NULL);
                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                                      ^
./julia_internal.h:797:1: note: 'rec_backtrace_ctx' declared here
size_t rec_backtrace_ctx(jl_bt_element_t *bt_data, size_t maxsize, bt_context_t *ctx,
^
1 error generated.
make[1]: *** [Makefile:161: signal-handling.o] Error 1

@NHDaly
Copy link
Member

NHDaly commented Jul 27, 2020

Note: this also needs 1.5 backport.

@KristofferC KristofferC mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2020
25 tasks
@KristofferC KristofferC mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2020
29 tasks
@Sacha0
Copy link
Member

Sacha0 commented Oct 5, 2020

It looks like this patch is no longer correct after #37002. Whether the issue persists I do not know, but will try to find out :). Edit: Taking another look at the issue description, this issue of course no longer exists as the relevant argument is gone again 😄.

@Sacha0
Copy link
Member

Sacha0 commented Oct 5, 2020

This issue has been obviated on master. Perhaps close? :)

@fredrikekre fredrikekre closed this Oct 5, 2020
@NHDaly
Copy link
Member

NHDaly commented Oct 5, 2020

@Sacha0 would it still make sense to backport this to 1.5 though?

@Sacha0
Copy link
Member

Sacha0 commented Oct 5, 2020

I'm operating under the assumption that with 1.6 inbound, there will be no more 1.5 releases. But if there are additional 1.5 releases, agreed! :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants