Thread: Why is ecpg segfaulting on buildfarm member "clownfish"?

Has anyone looked into $SUBJECT?  I just today realized that the
ECPG-Check failures on that machine are not the run-of-the-mill
small difference in the expected results.  Rather, most of the
tests are actually dumping core on the client side:

testing connect/test1.pgc                      ... skipped
testing connect/test2.pgc                      ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped
FAILED (log)
testing connect/test3.pgc                      ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped
FAILED (log)
testing connect/test4.pgc                      ... ok
testing connect/test5.pgc                      ... ok
testing compat_informix/charfuncs.pgc          ... ok
testing compat_informix/dec_test.pgc           ... ok
testing compat_informix/rfmtdate.pgc           ... ok
testing compat_informix/rfmtlong.pgc           ... ok
testing compat_informix/rnull.pgc              ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped
FAILED (log, output)
testing compat_informix/test_informix.pgc      ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped
FAILED (log, output)
testing compat_informix/test_informix2.pgc     ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped
FAILED (log, output)
testing preproc/comment.pgc                    ... ok
testing preproc/define.pgc                     ... Segmentation Fault - core dumped
FAILED (log, output)
etc etc

BTW, this is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to allow
minor regression failures to go unfixed --- people become desensitized.
I know I've been completely ignoring ECPG-Check buildfarm results
for awhile now.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
[...]

> BTW, this is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to allow
> minor regression failures to go unfixed --- people become desensitized.
> I know I've been completely ignoring ECPG-Check buildfarm results
> for awhile now.

I already reported that a while ago:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg00319.php

there was also some discussion off-list last week with Michael - I have 
arranged for an account on that box for him but I'm not sure if he 
already found time to investigate.


Stefan

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 06:25:50PM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> >BTW, this is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to allow
> >minor regression failures to go unfixed --- people become desensitized.
> >I know I've been completely ignoring ECPG-Check buildfarm results
> >for awhile now.

I was aware of this Tom, but didn't find the time to dig into it yet.

> there was also some discussion off-list last week with Michael - I have 
> arranged for an account on that box for him but I'm not sure if he 
> already found time to investigate.

I did today. This seemed like a strange one, but apparantly a gcc
ABI-bug workaround interfered with the compiler used here because the
workaround wasn't covering all positions.

make check now gives a full list of OKs on Stefan's machine. Thanks for
the account.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!