Bug #9507: Ruby 2.1.0 is broken on ARMv5: tried to create Proc object without a block

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: -
• Target version: -
• ruby -v: ruby 2.1.0dev (2013-09-04 trunk 42822) [armv5tel-linux-eabi]
• Tags: arm, core

I'm using Arch Linux ARM which currently ships with Ruby 2.1.0. On all my ARMv5 devices, trying to run Ruby fails with a strange error, which has also been reported here: https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/issues/705 ARMv6 and ARMv7 devices on the other hand seem to be fine.

Using git-bisect I was able to determine that the first bad commit is 2f522b9cc6f3e184404040b12af4486520a73b26 (r42822), which implements #8426:

[root@alarm ~]# ruby --version
ruby 2.1.0dev (2013-09-04 trunk 42822) [armv5tel-linux-eabi]
[root@alarm ~]# ruby -e 'puts "foo"'
/usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/requirement.rb:26:in `lambda': tried to create Proc object without a block (ArgumentError)
	from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/requirement.rb:26:in `<class:Requirement>'
	from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/requirement.rb:18:in `<top (required)>'
	from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/specification.rb:10:in `require'
	from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems/specification.rb:10:in `<top (required)>'
	from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems.rb:1161:in `require'
	from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems.rb:1161:in `<module:Gem>'
	from /usr/lib/ruby/2.1.0/rubygems.rb:114:in `<top (required)>'
	from <internal:gem_prelude>:1:in `require'
	from <internal:gem_prelude>:1:in `<compiled>'

The previous commit works correctly:

[root@alarm ~]# ruby --version
ruby 2.1.0dev (2013-09-04 trunk 42821) [armv5tel-linux-eabi]
[root@alarm ~]# ruby -e 'puts "foo"'
foo

The problem is still present in trunk (r44896).

Unfortunately I don't have an ARMv5 machine to debug this on. Is there anyone else who is able to take a look at this?

[abali (Andras Bali)]

I can only confirm this bug. Could we support anyhow in debugging this?

Do you have any idea what might be the cause here? Do you want me to try out anything?

If that helps fixing this issue, I can also give you SSH access to a SheevaPlug running Arch Linux ARM (the same system I used for investigating this issue).

• File 0002-Use-only-unsigned-long-for-rb_serial_t.patch 0002-Use-only-unsigned-long-for-rb_serial_t.patch added

With the bug still being present in both ruby_2_1 (r45227) and trunk (r45225), I had a more detailed look at the commit that first introduced this problem. The only somewhat architecture-dependent change in the original commit is this in internal.h:

+#if HAVE_UINT64_T
+    typedef uint64_t vm_state_version_t;
+#else
+    typedef unsigned long long vm_state_version_t;
+#endif

In the current code base the corresponding fragment reads:

#if defined(HAVE_LONG_LONG)
typedef unsigned LONG_LONG rb_serial_t;
#define SERIALT2NUM ULL2NUM
#elif defined(HAVE_UINT64_T)
typedef uint64_t rb_serial_t;
#define SERIALT2NUM SIZET2NUM
#else
typedef unsigned long rb_serial_t;
#define SERIALT2NUM ULONG2NUM
#endif

My config.h for ARMv5 contains both #define HAVE_LONG_LONG 1 and #define HAVE_UINT64_T 1, so for all versions of the code it will always take the first path. The unsigned long long variant as well as the uint64_t variant seem to be broken on ARMv5, so I decided to try the third one (unsigned long) by simply removing all other alternatives (patch attached). This successfully fixes the problem.

I'm not sure why you use the different types in the first place. If it works with unsigned long (i.e. you do not need more than 32 bits), what is the benefit of using unsigned long long? If it does bring some benefit for other architectures, could you disable its usage at least on ARMv5 or check your code whether it makes some assumptions about these types that do not hold on ARMv5?

[normalperson (Eric Wong)]

[e-mail] wrote:

My config.h for ARMv5 contains both #define HAVE_LONG_LONG 1 and
#define HAVE_UINT64_T 1, so for all versions of the code it will
always take the first path. The unsigned long long variant as well
as the uint64_t variant seem to be broken on ARMv5, so I decided to
try the third one (unsigned long) by simply removing all other
alternatives (patch attached). This successfully fixes the problem.

Could be a compiler problem with 64-bit emulation. Which
compiler/version is this? Can you try a newer one?
Can you try any other code which uses 64-bit math?

Also, it could be an alignment problem; but I don't see places
where rb_serial_t is not 32-bit aligned...

I'm not sure why you use the different types in the first place. If it
works with unsigned long (i.e. you do not need more than 32 bits),
what is the benefit of using unsigned long long? If it does bring
some benefit for other architectures, could you disable its usage at
least on ARMv5 or check your code whether it makes some assumptions
about these types that do not hold on ARMv5?

64-bits is needed to avoid overflow on VM state changes.
Otherwise our caches could give false hits and crash.

Which compiler/version is this? Can you try a newer one?

The compiler is

gcc (GCC) 4.8.2 20131219 (prerelease)

on the ARMv5 device and

arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-gcc (crosstool-NG 1.19.0) 4.8.3 20131219 (prerelease)

for cross-compiling. GCC 4.8.2 is already the newest release.

Out of curiosity, I gave Clang 3.4 a try, but it fails already during configure:

checking size of int... 0
checking size of short... 0
checking size of long... 0
checking size of long long... configure: error: in `/root/clang/ruby/src/ruby-2.1.0':
configure: error: cannot compute sizeof (long long)
See `config.log' for more details

I'm not sure what the problem here is, Clang compiles a simple printf("%d", sizeof(long long)); just fine. Maybe some incompatibility in the configure script?

Can you try any other code which uses 64-bit math?

Can you recommend any test code? Those compilers build the whole Arch Linux ARM repository, so if it were a common problem, it should have been noticed by now.

64-bits is needed to avoid overflow on VM state changes. Otherwise our caches could give false hits and crash.

I see. But isn't it dangerous then to fall back to unsigned long, which only guarantees at least 32 bits? Or is the probability for a crash with only 32 bits still very low, and 64 bits just provide some extra safety?

[normalperson (Eric Wong)]

[e-mail] wrote:

Can you try any other code which uses 64-bit math?

Can you recommend any test code? Those compilers build the whole Arch Linux ARM repository, so if it were a common problem, it should have been noticed by now.

Maybe some crypto or audio/video codecs. It could also be compiler
options for math worth trying.

64-bits is needed to avoid overflow on VM state changes. Otherwise our caches could give false hits and crash.

I see. But isn't it dangerous then to fall back to unsigned long,
which only guarantees at least 32 bits? Or is the probability for a
crash with only 32 bits still very low, and 64 bits just provide some
extra safety?

unsigned long is 64-bits on 64-bit systems. The probability of a 32-bit
crash is low and only affects codebases with frequent dynamic
method/module/class/const creation. Maybe few use the 32-bit unsigned
long case and don't hit the problem.

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

• Target version deleted (2.2.0)

[jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed
• Backport deleted (1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN)