Michael Felt <aixto...@felt.demon.nl> added the comment:
On 14/04/2020 14:54, Batuhan Taskaya wrote: > Batuhan Taskaya <batuhanosmantask...@gmail.com> added the comment: > >> With the print statements - it does not crash: > I think this isn't directly relevant with prints but about re-compiling? > (just guessing). I only recompiled the one .c file. With that one file re-compiled - wqith fprintf statements it succeeds, restore the original .c file (git checkout -- Objects/whatever.c; make - it fails. Tomorrow I'll search for the option(s) needed to get (complete) assembly code listing and try to see (and understand) the difference between what xlc-v13 and xlc-v16 makes. And, what I shall also test - is to recompile only this one file using xlc-v13 and see if the make then proceeds normally. > Because I experienced when I compile python for the first time on a clean > AIX environment, all extension modules failed to build. I only see this happen (on occasion) when I use make -j4 (or greater) - and I have seen it happen to a lessor extent with -j2. On the subsequent passes, whatever it is that setup.py (guessing) really needs is now available - and the modules build as expected. This is also why, for the last 4 years I have used my own personal server - where I control everything (mainly NO other party OSS packaged software and their artifacts). > When I recompiled (with keeping all artifacts from previous build) some of > them successfully got compiled. When I try to compile again, most of them > successfully compiled. I'm sorry but I don't know why this happens or how to > solve it. why - I do not understand the finer details either, but my guess is that it is related to linking. I am nearly "amazed" - yet happy - that the PPC64 AIX 3.X compile succeeds - but acknowledge the 22K+ lines of warnings is related to the over parallelization of the linking. > We can always revert that change but I guess that isn't the real problem. No. I do not think it is the real problem either. And I do not know compiler behavior well enough. Actually, considering the setting is still -O0 (aka no optimization) I am surprised it has any effect. if I understood correctly "no return" is intended to help the optimizer make "informed" decisions. As Victor commented earlier - very much looking like a compiler bug. That said, still do not know what to say/write to software support as a complaint. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue40244> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue40244> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
