[Bug 52770] New: Build failure with "make -j64" in rpcrt4
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Bug ID: 52770 Summary: Build failure with "make -j64" in rpcrt4 Product: Wine Version: 7.5 Hardware: x86-64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: rpc Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: bero(a)lindev.ch Distribution: --- Building wine 7.5 (with wine-staging patches, but they shouldn't be relevant to this) with "make -j64" fails with tools/winebuild/winebuild -b x86_64-w64-mingw32 -w --implib -o dlls/rpcrt4/librpcrt4.delay.a --export \ /home/bero/abf/wine/BUILD/wine-7.5/dlls/rpcrt4/rpcrt4.spec /usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dlltool: bfd_open failed reopen stub file: rpcrt4_dll_s00176.o: No such file or directory winebuild: /usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dlltool failed with status 1 make: *** [Makefile:297034: dlls/rpcrt4/librpcrt4.delay.a] Error 1 Probably the library is assembled before all object files belonging to it are built. Building with make (without SMP) works. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Sveinar Søpler <cybermax(a)dexter.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cybermax(a)dexter.no --- Comment #1 from Sveinar Søpler <cybermax(a)dexter.no> --- Is there a change if you build with lesser threads? Eg. make -j8 or something assuming you have a threadripper with 32 cores/64 threads? And possibly also interesting - distro, gcc and mingw-w64 version. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #2 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- These objects file are not created from the makefile. It sounds more like it's running into some kind of resource limit. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #3 from Sveinar Søpler <cybermax(a)dexter.no> --- (In reply to Alexandre Julliard from comment #2)
These objects file are not created from the makefile. It sounds more like it's running into some kind of resource limit.
tmpfs maybe? Just wondering since i got that exact error when building wine on OBS.. Also got a couple of other very strange errors that failed building on OBS with files that was not found, but could not find a error message from the actual compile.. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)orange.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC| |eric.pouech(a)orange.fr, | |julliard(a)winehq.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #4 from Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)orange.fr> --- I've run into a similar issue looking at the compile traces lets me believe that the issue arises when two instances of mingw dlltool run at the same time, and thrashing each other temporary files indeed, this ugly hack lets the compilation succeeds (it was failing almost always; sometimes on a different DLL) ----------- diff --git a/tools/winebuild/import.c b/tools/winebuild/import.c index c876d51f8e6..8049530a7e5 100644 --- a/tools/winebuild/import.c +++ b/tools/winebuild/import.c @@ -1595,7 +1595,11 @@ static void build_windows_import_lib( const char *lib_na> strarray_add( &args, lib_name ); strarray_add( &args, "-d" ); strarray_add( &args, def_file ); - + strarray_add( &args, "-t" ); + { + char tmp[128]; sprintf(tmp, "%u\n", getpid()); + strarray_add( &args, tmp ); + } switch (target.cpu) { case CPU_i386: ---------- Bernhard, can you test this on your side? I don't see a simple way to fix it... -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #5 from Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)orange.fr> --- hmmm thinking about it, doesn't look quite right (or sufficient) in the dlltool source code, if no -t prefix is given, will generate its own prefix based on pid... need more investigation -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #6 from Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)orange.fr> --- I'm testing on two environments: E1) with dlltool 2.38-1 E2) with dlltool 2.37-3 I see the error in E1 only <g> on all env, I run
strace winebuild... <c/l from makefile> -v -v >& log grep exec log
results: ==================== E2) pid 12272] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dlltool", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dllt"..., "-k", "-y", "dlls/iphlpapi/libiphlpapi.delay."..., "-d", "libiphlpapi.delay-625082dd.def", "-m", "i386:x86-64", "--as-flags=--64"], 0x7ffc19487b48 /* 56 vars */) = 0 [pid 12273] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", "--64", "-o", "daesh.o", "daesh.s"], 0x7fffa1e12cf8 /* 56 vars */ <unfinished ...> [pid 12273] <... execve resumed>) = 0 [pid 12274] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", "--64", "-o", "daest.o", "daest.s"], 0x7fffa1e12cf8 /* 56 vars */ <unfinished ...> [pid 12274] <... execve resumed>) = 0 ==================== E1-without the patch below) execve("tools/winebuild/winebuild", ["tools/winebuild/winebuild", "-b", "x86_64-w64-mingw32", "-w", "--implib", "-o", "dlls/iphlpapi/libiphlpapi.delay."..., "--export", "/home/eric/wine/wine/dlls/iphlpa"..., "-v", "-v"], 0x7ffc4d598b28 /* 54 vars */) = 0 [pid 9078] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dlltool", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dllt"..., "-k", "-y", "dlls/iphlpapi/libiphlpapi.delay."..., "-d", "libiphlpapi.delay-6250734a.def", "-m", "i386:x86-64", "--as-flags=--64"], 0x7ffd66663948 /* 54 vars */) = 0 [pid 9079] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", "--64", "-o", "iphlpapi_dll_h.o", "iphlpapi_dll_h.s"], 0x7ffd4c406e08 /* 54 vars */ <unfinished ...> [pid 9079] <... execve resumed>) = 0 [pid 9080] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", "--64", "-o", "iphlpapi_dll_t.o", "iphlpapi_dll_t.s"], 0x7ffd4c406e08 /* 54 vars */ <unfinished ...> [pid 9080] <... execve resumed>) = 0 ==================== E1-with the patch above) execve("tools/winebuild/winebuild", ["tools/winebuild/winebuild", "-b", "x86_64-w64-mingw32", "-w", "--implib", "-o", "dlls/iphlpapi/libiphlpapi.delay."..., "--export", "/home/eric/wine/wine/dlls/iphlpa"..., "-v", "-v"], 0x7ffd5925c228 /* 54 vars */) = 0 [pid 9601] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dlltool", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-dllt"..., "-k", "-y", "dlls/iphlpapi/libiphlpapi.delay."..., "-d", "libiphlpapi.delay-6250774f.def", "-t", "9600\n", "-m", "i386:x86-64", "--as-flags=--64"], 0x7fff84ee6468 /* 54 vars */) = 0 [pid 9602] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", "--64", "-o", "9600\nh.o", "9600\nh.s"], 0x7ffdc7cf0c98 /* 54 vars */ <unfinished ...> [pid 9602] <... execve resumed>) = 0 [pid 9603] execve("/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", ["/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-as", "--64", "-o", "9600\nt.o", "9600\nt.s"], 0x7ffdc7cf0c98 /* 54 vars */ <unfinished ...> [pid 9603] <... execve resumed>) = 0 to summarize, binutils 2.38 no longer generates a temp file name dependant on the pid... using the -t options forces back the regular behavior... Bernhard, Sveinar: could you also look at the dlltool --version output to see if this converges to 2.38* looks I have to dig further into binutils source code -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #7 from Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)orange.fr> --- https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28885 so it's a known issue in 2.38 and fixed in 2.39 backport to 2.38 to be checked -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #8 from Sveinar Søpler <cybermax(a)dexter.no> --- (In reply to Eric Pouech from comment #7)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28885
so it's a known issue in 2.38 and fixed in 2.39 backport to 2.38 to be checked
So, this seems to be the patch then? https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=patch;h=99852365513266afdd7... binutils-38 for jammy was updated 23/3-22, but could not find anything in the debian patches nor the changelog for this. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #9 from Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)orange.fr> ---
binutils-38 for jammy was updated 23/3-22, but could not find anything in the debian patches nor the changelog for this. that's what I meant with "backport to 2.38 to be checked"... not sure <put here your favorite distro> will post an update for this change
-- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #10 from Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)orange.fr> --- (In reply to Eric Pouech from comment #9)
binutils-38 for jammy was updated 23/3-22, but could not find anything in the debian patches nor the changelog for this. that's what I meant with "backport to 2.38 to be checked"... not sure <put here your favorite distro> will post an update for this change
and to be precise, one should check the binutils version on which mingw's dlltool is built upon (not the binutils version for the ELF compilation, which may be on a different version) x86_64-w64-mingw32-dlltool --version i686-w64-mingw32-dlltool --version -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Lorenzo Ferrillo <lorenzofer(a)live.it> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lorenzofer(a)live.it --- Comment #11 from Lorenzo Ferrillo <lorenzofer(a)live.it> --- I can confirm that recompiling mingw-binutils witht his patch https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=patch;h=99852365513266afdd7... fix the issue -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Zeb Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dark.shadow4(a)web.de --- Comment #12 from Zeb Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> --- *** Bug 53011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Zeb Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NOTOURBUG Status|NEW |RESOLVED Component|rpc |-unknown CC| |z.figura12(a)gmail.com Summary|Build failure with "make |Multithreaded compilation |-j64" in rpcrt4 |fails with binutils 2.38 --- Comment #13 from Zeb Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> --- Resolving upstream. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dimesio(a)earthlink.net --- Comment #14 from Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net> --- *** Bug 53024 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 --- Comment #15 from Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net> --- I just ran into this trying to build wine-devel-7.9 packages for jammy. The Ubuntu bug is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils-mingw-w64/+bug/1971901. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://launchpad.net/bugs/ | |1971901 -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jon9097(a)gmail.com --- Comment #16 from Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead(a)gmail.com> --- *** Bug 53077 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52770 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pixel(a)hugbox.org --- Comment #17 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- *** Bug 53675 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
WineHQ Bugzilla