Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Thanks for reporting it. BTW how you obtained gcc 4.8 on rhel6. Was that some
kind of Red hat developer toolset ? Or maybe gcc 4.8 built manually ?
Original comment by alkondratenko
on 28 Jan 2015 at 11:12
The problem occurred on a cluster on which I am merely a user so I do not
know for sure... however looking at the build options it looks like it was
built manually. I will ask the sys-admin to confirm...
In case it is useful this is the output from gcc -v for the 4.8.0 version:
Reading specs from
/usr/local/gcc-4.8.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/specs
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-4.8.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.
8.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.8.0/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-4.8.0 CC=gcc
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 (GCC)
Then this is the output from the 4.4.7 version:
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.7/specs
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla
--enable-bootstrap --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-gnu-unique-object
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,java,fortran,ada
--enable-java-awt=gtk --disable-dssi
--with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre
--enable-libgcj-multifile --enable-java-maintainer-mode
--with-ecj-jar=/usr/share/java/eclipse-ecj.jar --disable-libjava-multilib
--with-ppl --with-cloog --with-tune=generic --with-arch_32=i686
--build=x86_64-redhat-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3) (GCC)
Original comment by pilot...@gmail.com
on 28 Jan 2015 at 11:32
Hello gperftools developers
So the sys-admin for the cluster confirmed that gcc was built
from source. Here is his e-mail:
On bugaboo, gcc-4.8.0 was built from source. This is rather old
build and the command to build was simple:
cd /usr/local/src/gcc-4.8.0-build
../gcc-4.8.0/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-4.8.0 CC=gcc
make bootstrap
make install
Hope this information will help you. If you need a new version,
we can build it too.
Take Care
Mike
Original comment by pilot...@gmail.com
on 29 Jan 2015 at 1:19
Hello I tried on a newer compiler on a different computer. This time gcc 4.8.2
here are the gcc -v options:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/lustre/jasper/software/gcc/gcc-4.8.2/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86
_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./configure --prefix=/global/software/gcc/gcc-4.8.2
--enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release
--with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions
--enable-libgcj-multifile --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--enable-java-awt=gtk --disable-dssi --disable-plugin
--with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-1.4.2.0/jre --with-cpu=generic
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.2 (GCC)
So this problem is not isolated to 4.8.0
Take Care
Mike
Original comment by pilot...@gmail.com
on 29 Jan 2015 at 11:02
Looking at errors logs I was able to reproduce the problem and "fix" it.
This seem to be caused by some changes to how gcc may name static functions.
And older binutils from rhel6 not able to deal with that.
I.e. _ZL8Allocateiii.constprop.2 from profile does not get "demangled" down to
Allocate which is expected by test.
So it's actually quite harmless in practice.
I was able to reproduce this problem building gcc 4.8.4 (latest) inside centos
6 docker container. Then when I updated binutils too, failures went away.
Marking as NotABug because it's not a bug that can or should be fixed in
gperftools. It can be argued that it's not a bug at all (i.e. apparently
upgrading gcc should include upgrading binutils).
Original comment by alkondratenko
on 31 Jan 2015 at 4:59
Hello gperftools developers
Thanks for looking into that. Glad to hear it can be ignored!
Take Care
Mike
Original comment by pilot...@gmail.com
on 1 Feb 2015 at 2:45
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
pilot...@gmail.com
on 28 Jan 2015 at 10:14Attachments: