| msg116623 - (view) |
Author: Tom Browder (Tom.Browder) |
Date: 2010-09-16 22:02 |
| I am trying to rebuild the 2.7 maintenance branch and get this error on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS: XXX lineno: 743, opcode: 0 Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/src/python-2.7-maint-svn/Lib/site.py", line 62, in import os File "/usr/local/src/python-2.7-maint-svn/Lib/os.py", line 743, in def urandom(n): SystemError: unknown opcode I installed it successfully once so I may be getting conflicts, but I can't figure out why. There were some similar bugs reported in previous versions but I didn't see a clear solution. I have done "make distclean" and "./configure". I have unset my PYTHONPATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but python2.7 is my default python from a previous good build and installation. |
|
|
| msg116628 - (view) |
Author: Amaury Forgeot d'Arc (amaury.forgeotdarc) *  |
Date: 2010-09-16 22:22 |
| Maybe a corrupted .pyc file? Can you please attach the file /usr/local/src/python-2.7-maint-svn/Lib/os.pyc |
|
|
| msg116637 - (view) |
Author: Tom Browder (Tom.Browder) |
Date: 2010-09-16 23:01 |
| File attached as requested. |
|
|
| msg116639 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2010-09-16 23:12 |
| Note that I tried to reproduce this on my 10.04.1 system, with various states of Python 2.7 installed, etc. and was unable to reproduce it. It's certainly odd that you're getting the SystemError on that line. |
|
|
| msg116647 - (view) |
Author: Amaury Forgeot d'Arc (amaury.forgeotdarc) * |
Date: 2010-09-17 07:09 |
| For some reason your file os.pyc is corrupted: I loaded it with a working python2.7: import marshal, dis pyc = open('bados.pyc', 'rb').read() code = marshal.loads(pyc[8:]) dis.dis(code) And it appears that all the "jump" instructions are wrong: the address is either 0, or something around 65536. Which compiler do you use? I remember subtle bugs caused by some version of gcc. |
|
|
| msg116650 - (view) |
Author: Tom Browder (Tom.Browder) |
Date: 2010-09-17 10:29 |
| I'm using gcc-4.5.1. I'll try an older version: gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3. |
|
|
| msg116651 - (view) |
Author: Tom Browder (Tom.Browder) |
Date: 2010-09-17 10:44 |
| The build succeeded with the older version of gcc. I either have a mis-compiled gcc-4.5.1 (but the same version on another host worked okay) or gcc has a very subtle bug. I think this issue can be considered closed; however, it may be worth a note in a FAQ or build instructions. Good catch Amaury! |
|
|
| msg116652 - (view) |
Author: Tom Browder (Tom.Browder) |
Date: 2010-09-17 10:51 |
| Correction on the bad gcc compiler: the actual version was a non-released version off the gcc-4.6 branch: gcc version 4.6.0 20100908 (experimental) (GCC). I'm filing a bug with gcc. Sorry for the wasted time. |
|
|
| msg116654 - (view) |
Author: Amaury Forgeot d'Arc (amaury.forgeotdarc) * |
Date: 2010-09-17 11:08 |
| You're welcome. Please join a link to the gcc bug when you have one. |
|
|
| msg116657 - (view) |
Author: Tom Browder (Tom.Browder) |
Date: 2010-09-17 11:37 |
| Here is a link to the thread I started on the gcc-help mailing list concerning the issue: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-09/msg00170.html If I don't get a successful build with the current gcc trunk, I imagine this thread will transfer to the gcc (dev) list--I'll try to keep the links up. |
|
|
| msg116872 - (view) |
Author: Tom Browder (Tom.Browder) |
Date: 2010-09-19 14:46 |
| I'm getting no interest from the gcc group at the moment. I would like to help track down the bug and will nose around the Python source to zero in on where the problem is for detailed debugging. Can anyone point me to the key files that concern the byte compiler? |
|
|
| msg116873 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2010-09-19 14:52 |
| You can look at Python/compile.c (the ast-to-bytecode compiler), Python/peephole.c (the bytecode optimizer), Python/marshal.c (the on-disk bytecode serializer/unserialize). First step could be to actually disable the optimizer (see PyCode_Optimize in peephole.c). |
|
|
| msg125808 - (view) |
Author: Stefan Krah (skrah) * |
Date: 2011-01-08 23:46 |
| I narrowed this issue down to -ftree-vectorize, which is part of -O3. |
|
|
| msg126091 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2011-01-12 13:08 |
| With gcc-4.6 -O1, Python 3.2 works correctly. With gcc-4.6 -O1 -ftree-vectorize, the assertion "assert (new_line - last_line < 255);" fails in PyCode_Optimize(). I think that the problem is in the following loop: ------------------------------------- #define NOP 9 #define HAVE_ARGUMENT 90 /* Opcodes from here have an argument: */ #define HAS_ARG(op) ((op) >= HAVE_ARGUMENT) #define CODESIZE(op) (HAS_ARG(op) ? 3 : 1) unsigned char *codestr = NULL; Py_ssize_t codelen; int *addrmap = NULL; /* Fixup linenotab */ for (i=0, nops=0 ; i<codelen ; i += CODESIZE(codestr[i])) { addrmap[i] = i - nops; if (codestr[i] == NOP) nops++; } ------------------------------------- gcc-4.6 -O1: ------------------------------------- 0x0000000000480991 <+5041>: mov %eax,%edx 0x0000000000480993 <+5043>: sub %esi,%edx 0x0000000000480995 <+5045>: mov %edx,(%r12,%rax,4) 0x0000000000480999 <+5049>: movzbl 0x0(%rbp,%rax,1),%edx 0x000000000048099e <+5054>: cmp 0x9,0x9,%dl 0x00000000004809a1 <+5057>: jne 0x4809a8 <PyCode_Optimize+5064> 0x00000000004809a3 <+5059>: add 0x9,0x1,%esi 0x00000000004809a6 <+5062>: jmp 0x4809b2 <PyCode_Optimize+5074> 0x00000000004809a8 <+5064>: mov 0x3,0x3,%ecx 0x00000000004809ad <+5069>: cmp 0x3,0x59,%dl 0x00000000004809b0 <+5072>: ja 0x4809b7 <PyCode_Optimize+5079> 0x00000000004809b2 <+5074>: mov 0x1,0x1,%ecx 0x00000000004809b7 <+5079>: add %rcx,%rax 0x00000000004809ba <+5082>: cmp %rax,%rdi 0x00000000004809bd <+5085>: jg 0x480991 <PyCode_Optimize+5041> ------------------------------------- gcc-4.6 -O1 -ftree-vectorize ------------------------------------- 0x0000000000480991 <+5041>: mov %eax,%ecx 0x0000000000480993 <+5043>: sub %edx,%ecx 0x0000000000480995 <+5045>: mov %ecx,(%r12,%rax,4) 0x0000000000480999 <+5049>: movzbl 0x0(%rbp,%rax,1),%ecx 0x000000000048099e <+5054>: lea 0x1(%rdx),%esi 0x00000000004809a1 <+5057>: cmp 0x1,0x9,%cl 0x00000000004809a4 <+5060>: cmovne %edx,%esi 0x00000000004809a7 <+5063>: cmove %esi,%edx 0x00000000004809aa <+5066>: setne %cl 0x00000000004809ad <+5069>: movzbl %cl,%ecx 0x00000000004809b0 <+5072>: lea 0x1(%rax,%rcx,2),%rax 0x00000000004809b5 <+5077>: cmp %rax,%rdi 0x00000000004809b8 <+5080>: jg 0x480991 <PyCode_Optimize+5041> ------------------------------------- |
|
|
| msg126092 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2011-01-12 13:11 |
| More info about the loop: ---- Py_ssize_t i; int nops; ---- My setup: * Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz * Debian Sid * gcc (Debian 20110106-1) 4.6.0 20110106 (experimental) [trunk revision 168538] |
|
|
| msg126097 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2011-01-12 13:32 |
| [...] > > gcc-4.6 -O1 -ftree-vectorize > ------------------------------------- > 0x0000000000480991 <+5041>: mov %eax,%ecx > 0x0000000000480993 <+5043>: sub %edx,%ecx > 0x0000000000480995 <+5045>: mov %ecx,(%r12,%rax,4) > 0x0000000000480999 <+5049>: movzbl 0x0(%rbp,%rax,1),%ecx > 0x000000000048099e <+5054>: lea 0x1(%rdx),%esi > 0x00000000004809a1 <+5057>: cmp $0x9,%cl > 0x00000000004809a4 <+5060>: cmovne %edx,%esi > 0x00000000004809a7 <+5063>: cmove %esi,%edx > 0x00000000004809aa <+5066>: setne %cl > 0x00000000004809ad <+5069>: movzbl %cl,%ecx > 0x00000000004809b0 <+5072>: lea 0x1(%rax,%rcx,2),%rax > 0x00000000004809b5 <+5077>: cmp %rax,%rdi > 0x00000000004809b8 <+5080>: jg 0x480991 <PyCode_Optimize+5041> > ------------------------------------- Looks like code generation is borked. (it lacks a compare to 0x59 or 0x5a (90), and "setne" wouldn't be the right instruction anyway) |
|
|
| msg126098 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2011-01-12 13:38 |
| > Looks like code generation is borked. I sent an email to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-01/msg00136.html |
|
|
| msg126121 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2011-01-12 18:38 |
| I reported the bug to GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47271 |
|
|
| msg126146 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2011-01-12 22:24 |
| Do we have to keep this open? |
|
|
| msg126147 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2011-01-12 22:26 |
| > Do we have to keep this open? Nope, let's close it. |
|
|