LOCKFREE-HASH-CONCURRENT-TWIDDLING fails because of memory corruption

Bug #1383650 reported by Chris Wagner
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
SBCL
Incomplete
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

When running the tests/info.impure.lisp tests, LOCKFREE-HASH-CONCURRENT-TWIDDLING tests fails pretty much consistently:

::: Running :LOCKFREE-HASH-CONCURRENT-TWIDDLING
CORRUPTION WARNING in SBCL pid 3257(tid 0x7fff7d514310):
Memory fault at b00c5010 (pc=0x7fff97964de9, sp=0x11fe900)
The integrity of this image is possibly compromised.
Continuing with fingers crossed.
::: UNEXPECTED-FAILURE :LOCKFREE-HASH-CONCURRENT-TWIDDLING
    due to #<MEMORY-FAULT-ERROR {1002EE0433}>:
        "Unhandled memory fault at #xB00C5010."

Note that this could be related to the same problem that causes the ATOMIC-PUSH test (in tests/compare-and-swap.impure.lisp) to fail regularly, though not systematically, with the same error message. (I have yet to check that the exception leading the corruption detection is the same in both cases.)

Tags: os-darwin
Revision history for this message
Chris Wagner (christian-r-wagner) wrote :

The problem affects SBCL 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, at least.

I built them using SBCL 1.1.6.0-3c5581a as host Lisp (because that's the latest officially distributed binary version of SBCL for MacOS/X). I can forward the log of the build process.

The platform is:
$ system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType
 System Version: OS X 10.9.5 (13F34)
 Kernel Version: Darwin 13.4.0

$ system_profiler SPHardwareDataType
 Model Name: MacBook Pro
 Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,1
 Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo

$ uname -a
 ... root:xnu-2422.115.4~1/RELEASE_X86_64

$ gcc --version
Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.51) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13.4.0
Thread model: posix

Revision history for this message
Douglas Katzman (dougk) wrote :

macOS multithreading seems to be working better than it was 4 years ago.
I'd say this issue is obsolete

Changed in sbcl:
status: New → Incomplete
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.