Re: Several buildfarm animals fail tests because of shared memory error

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 12:32, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The error seems to be around "annobin.so" and so it may be about how
> > gcc is being compiled (not sure). While I figure out if GCC compilation
> > needs work, I thought to bring it up here since v16+ seems to work fine
> on
> > the same box and we may want to consider doing something similar for all
> > older versions too?
>
> This went into v16 and was not back-patched, which is probably wise
> because there was at least one followup fix (1c3aa5450) and we still
> didn't entirely understand what was happening in the Cygwin build [1].
> So I'm hesitant to consider back-patching it just because your
> experimental gcc isn't working.

Thanks for that background. My goal here was to bring up a use-case
where we may want to backpatch, but given that there are more moving
parts and a backpatch isn't trivial, I also agree that it may not be worth
the risk. Especially given that the scenario is rare (i.e. not many people
would be hand-compiling gcc to step onto this issue).

I've paused parula for now and will re-enable older branches
once it is working properly, or, I'll revert to stock gcc as a last resort.

> At the very least we ought to find
> out why it worked up till three weeks ago.
>

+1. I'll try to see if GCC is to blame (basically if a gcc commit did this).
If that isn't it, another suspect is that since Nov 24, I enabled automatic
updates on the box (I used to apply OS updates manually every few
months), and an automatic update messed things up in some
way (unsure).

-
robins