On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 12:00 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 10:59 -0400, Camm Maguire wrote:
> > Greetings, and thanks again for your work on this!
> >
> > Svante Signell <svante.sign...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > maxima still FTBFS at the same place.
> > >
> > > Seems like there are errors when running gcl for both packages:
> > > task(9610) decreasing a bogus port 1701869637 by 1, most probably a bug.
> >
> > Interesting. My general experience has been lockups almost impossible
> > to debug and do anything but a kill -9.
> I managed to create a batch version, see attached maxima_commandline,
> and got an rpctrace (not attached, too big) and a gdb backtrace
> (maxima_gdb.txt). Seems like the bugs are in the memory protection
> parts.
Here is what the gnumach kernel debugger gave:
With the kernel debugger enabled for mach_port_deallocate_debug in
ipc/mach_port.c:
static volatile boolean_t mach_port_deallocate_debug = TRUE;
ps -feMw|grep 1125
srs 1125 1113
0:12.19
/home/srs/DEBs/gcl/gcl-2.6.12/debian/ansi/usr/lib/gcl-2.6.12/unixport/saved_ansi_gcl
Copied freely from the console output:
task ...nixport/saved_ansi_gcl(1125) decreasing a bogus port 877799456,
most probably a bug.
Debugger invoked: mach_port_mod_refs
Kernel Breakpoint trap, eip 0x801208f4
Stopped at softDebugger+0x13: int $3
SoftDebugger(801db7a3,1,f5f47ef4,8024834c)+0x13
mach_port_mod_refs(f5c99210,34522820,1,ffffffff,f60c0e40)+0xc5
device_pager_server(f5d2c010,f5cc8010,1,0,1)+0x7bb
ipc_kobject_server(f5d2c000,1,0,0)+0x92
mach_msg_trap(1536a24,3,30,20,9b)+0x79c
trace/tu gave the same result.
