Closed
Bug 582910
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
64-bit win7: TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | e4x/Regress/regress-347155.js | Exited with code -1073741571 during test run
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla2.0b4
People
(Reporter: m_kato, Assigned: m_kato)
References
Details
Attachments
(3 files)
(deleted),
patch
|
dbaron
:
review+
dbaron
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
dbaron
:
review+
dbaron
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
link.exe sets default stack size is 1MB. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8cxs58a6.aspx)
But http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/js/src/xpconnect/src/xpcjsruntime.cpp#1227
1227 JS_SetNativeStackQuota(cx, 128 * sizeof(size_t) * 1024);
stack limit of js engine sets 128 * 8 * 1024 = 1MB (32bit version is 512KB)
So e4x/Regress/regress-347155.js causes stack overflow.
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Summary: TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | e4x/Regress/regress-347155.js | Exited with code -1073 741571 during test run → 64-bit win7: TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | e4x/Regress/regress-347155.js | Exited with code -1073 741571 during test run
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Assignee: general → m_kato
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #461446 -
Flags: review?(dolske)
Updated•14 years ago
|
Summary: 64-bit win7: TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | e4x/Regress/regress-347155.js | Exited with code -1073 741571 during test run → 64-bit win7: TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | e4x/Regress/regress-347155.js | Exited with code -1073741571 during test run
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
Do you also expect this to fix this crashtest failure, or should a separate bug be filed on it:
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1280581006.1280581431.31618.gz
Rev3 WINNT 6.1 x64 mozilla-central opt test crashtest on 2010/07/31 05:56:46
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | file:///C:/talos-slave/mozilla-central-w764-opt-u-crashtest/build/reftest/tests/content/events/crashtests/recursive-DOMNodeInserted.html | Exited with code -1073741571 during test run
http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1280502954.1280503374.5513.gz
Rev3 WINNT 6.1 x64 mozilla-central opt test crashtest on 2010/07/30 08:15:54
TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL | file:///C:/talos-slave/mozilla-central-w764-opt-u-crashtest/build/reftest/tests/content/events/crashtests/recursive-DOMNodeInserted.html | Exited with code -1073741571 during test run
Comment 3•14 years ago
|
||
(Actually, I'm reasonably confident it will also fix it. And probably also the editor test crash in mochitest-plain-3/5, which also looks like it could recurse deeply.)
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Was this a regression from http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b9f320e24e04 , or has it been a problem since we started running the Win64 tests?
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #4)
> Was this a regression from
> http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b9f320e24e04 , or has it been a
> problem since we started running the Win64 tests?
I believe that this is from changing compiler to VC++9. But, also, this problem has on VC++10 since stack size is unchanged.
(In reply to comment #2)
> Do you also expect this to fix this crashtest failure, or should a separate bug
> be filed on it:
>
> http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1280581006.1280581431.31618.gz
> Rev3 WINNT 6.1 x64 mozilla-central opt test crashtest on 2010/07/31 05:56:46
> TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL |
> file:///C:/talos-slave/mozilla-central-w764-opt-u-crashtest/build/reftest/tests/content/events/crashtests/recursive-DOMNodeInserted.html
> | Exited with code -1073741571 during test run
>
> http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Firefox/1280502954.1280503374.5513.gz
> Rev3 WINNT 6.1 x64 mozilla-central opt test crashtest on 2010/07/30 08:15:54
> TEST-UNEXPECTED-FAIL |
> file:///C:/talos-slave/mozilla-central-w764-opt-u-crashtest/build/reftest/tests/content/events/crashtests/recursive-DOMNodeInserted.html
> | Exited with code -1073741571 during test run
I think that this is same.
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 461446 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
Someone more familiar with the particularities of x64 and this problem should review this. Maybe ted?
Attachment #461446 -
Flags: review?(dolske) → review?(ted.mielczarek)
Comment 7•14 years ago
|
||
(Also, do Linux or OS X need a stacksize adjustment too on x86?)
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 461446 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
Sorry, but this really isn't my purview either. dbaron: care to review?
As an aside, I don't think you need the "see bug 582910" comment. We have blame for people to find bug numbers.
Attachment #461446 -
Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review?(dbaron)
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 461446 [details] [diff] [review]
fix
r=dbaron
Though perhaps it's better to use "/STACK" rather tan "-STACK" to be consistent with the code right above it?
(I even found the documentation for the option at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8cxs58a6%28v=VS.90%29.aspx .)
Attachment #461446 -
Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #9)
> Comment on attachment 461446 [details] [diff] [review]
> fix
>
> r=dbaron
>
> Though perhaps it's better to use "/STACK" rather tan "-STACK" to be consistent
> with the code right above it?
>
> (I even found the documentation for the option at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8cxs58a6%28v=VS.90%29.aspx .)
It works either '-' or '/'. Most linker parameters that we uses are '-'
link -NOLOGO -DLL -OUT:xul.dll -PDB:xul.pdb -SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS dlldeps-xul.obj
nsStaticXULComponents.obj nsDllMain.obj dlldeps.obj nsGFXDeps.obj dlldeps-zlib.o
bj nsUnicharUtils.obj nsBidiUtils.obj nsRDFResource.obj ./module.res -NXCOMPA
T -DYNAMICBASE -SAFESEH -DEBUG -DEBUGTYPE:CV -MANIFEST:NO -LIBPATH:"c:/Workspac
e/hg.mozilla.org/objdir-win32-1/memory/jemalloc/crtsrc/build/intel" -NODEFAULTLI
B:msvcrt -NODEFAULTLIB:msvcrtd -NODEFAULTLIB:msvcprt -NODEFAULTLIB:msvcprtd ...
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #461446 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #461446 -
Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
Actually, though, maybe this patch should be changing all the locations where we currently have this code:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=HEAP%3A0
(r=dbaron and a=dbaron stand with that change)
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•14 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•14 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b4
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•14 years ago
|
||
We may need this for xpcshell. xpcshell test hang (timeout) is same reason (stack overflow).
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•14 years ago
|
||
fix xpcshell test hang (I forget xpcshell for test!)
Attachment #466923 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #466923 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #466923 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #466923 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #466923 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Attachment #466923 -
Flags: approval2.0+
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•14 years ago
|
||
land for xpcshell
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/dc804317e500
Comment 17•14 years ago
|
||
And xpcshell tests are now green.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•