Support for unreleased beta apple operating systems (was Support for ancient machines and operating systems)

Tue Jan 9 23:45:02 UTC 2024

To conclude gperftools topic:

The following commit drops local rosetta patch, as well as another patch,
since both issues are fixed in upstream.
It also fixes a broken tests target and updates the port to 2.15.
https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/22097/commits/005cd16fae819210578ac2ccdc9b9775dbc06b95

CMake build system does not work nicely for tests with this port, but
with makefiles build of 2.15 release results are:
14.2.1 arm64: PASS:  43 FAIL:  3
10.6 ppc: PASS:  39 FAIL:  7

Looks like I did not cause any “wreckage” after all, and 10.6 ppc with
makefiles (which was the system I used back then, when added support for
tests for this port) performs better than Sonoma with CMake. (No
exaggeration, it is literally the case: with CMake 12 tests fail on 14.2.1.)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:34 PM Sergey Fedorov <vital.had at gmail.com> wrote:

> So, to Ken’s claim re gperftools.
>
> > And now there it sits in the ports tree, a useless MacPorts-only patch,
> just waiting to break something.
>
> To begin with, this is a false statement. The patch is NOT MacPorts-only
> but backported from the upstream. Of course, Ken did not bother to take a
> look.
> Here it is in the master:
> https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools/blob/365060c4213a48adb27f63d5dfad41b3dfbdd62e/src/libc_override_osx.h#L274-L283
>
> > Would it still work properly on 10.6 Intel?
>
> Ironically, since the build system was switched to experimental CMake (not
> by me), tests target is just broken. Apparently no one ever tried to run
> tests for it, despite such a great concern that my fix for PPC could have
> broken something.
> This commit switched the build system:
>
> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/7375653e34deb7d53d4223fcb81cf1aaadf8f963
>
> I ran tests on 10.6.8 x86_64 (default clang etc.) now from makefiles
> build, with and without my patch. Some tests fail, but regardless of adding
> the patch (that is, same tests fail).
> I also tried to run tests with CMake build system after fixing the target,
> and nearly same failures happen, though tcmalloc_unittest fails with CMake
> but passes with makefiles.
> In all three cases getpc_test either freezes or gonna take forever, and I
> have no time to wait right now.
>
> So far I can see that a move to CMake did break some stuff, but my patch
> is inconsequential.
>
> > Does it work at all on 10.6 for PPC? Who can tell?
>
> Certainly you could try running tests and tell us, since you somehow find
> sufficient time to discourage supporting PPC.
> But anyway, this is from makefiles build on 10.6.8 Rosetta:
>
> :info:test /usr/bin/make  pprof_unittest
> :info:test ./src/pprof -test
> :info:test AddressAdd 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressAdd 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressSub 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressSub 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressInc 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressInc 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test PASS
> :info:test /usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> :info:test ./src/pprof -test
> :info:test AddressAdd 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressAdd 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressSub 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressSub 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressInc 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test AddressInc 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
> :info:test PASS
> :info:test PASS: low_level_alloc_unittest
> :info:test PASS: atomicops_unittest
> :info:test ./test-driver: line 112: 40951 Abort trap              "$@" >>
> "$log_file" 2>&1
> :info:test FAIL: stacktrace_unittest
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_minimal_unittest
> :info:test PASS: tcm_min_asserts_unittest
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_minimal_large_unittest
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_minimal_large_heap_fragmentation_unittest
> :info:test PASS: addressmap_unittest
> :info:test PASS: system_alloc_unittest
> :info:test PASS: packed_cache_test
> :info:test PASS: frag_unittest
> :info:test PASS: markidle_unittest
> :info:test PASS: current_allocated_bytes_test
> :info:test PASS: malloc_hook_test
> :info:test PASS: malloc_extension_test
> :info:test PASS: malloc_extension_c_test
> :info:test PASS: page_heap_test
> :info:test PASS: pagemap_unittest
> :info:test PASS: realloc_unittest
> :info:test PASS: stack_trace_table_test
> :info:test PASS: thread_dealloc_unittest
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_minimal_debug_unittest
> :info:test PASS: malloc_extension_debug_test
> :info:test PASS: realloc_debug_unittest
> :info:test rm -f debugallocation_test.sh
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/debugallocation_test.sh
> debugallocation_test.sh
> :info:test FAIL: debugallocation_test.sh
> :info:test rm -f tcmalloc_unittest.sh
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/tcmalloc_unittest.sh tcmalloc_unittest.sh
> :info:test FAIL: tcmalloc_unittest.sh
> :info:test PASS: tcm_asserts_unittest
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_large_unittest
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_large_heap_fragmentation_unittest
> :info:test PASS: raw_printer_test
> :info:test PASS: sampler_test
> :info:test rm -f sampling_test.sh
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/sampling_test.sh sampling_test.sh
> :info:test FAIL: sampling_test.sh
> :info:test rm -f heap-profiler_unittest.sh
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/heap-profiler_unittest.sh
> heap-profiler_unittest.sh
> :info:test FAIL: heap-profiler_unittest.sh
> :info:test PASS: simple_compat_test
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_debug_unittest
> :info:test PASS: sampler_debug_test
> :info:test rm -f sampling_debug_test.sh
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/sampling_test.sh sampling_debug_test.sh
> :info:test FAIL: sampling_debug_test.sh
> :info:test rm -f heap-profiler_debug_unittest.sh
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/heap-profiler_unittest.sh
> heap-profiler_debug_unittest.sh
> :info:test FAIL: heap-profiler_debug_unittest.sh
>
> This is on 10.6.8 x86_64:
>
> :info:test /usr/bin/make  pprof_unittest
>
> :info:test ./src/pprof -test
>
> :info:test AddressAdd 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressAdd 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressSub 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressSub 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressInc 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressInc 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test PASS
>
> :info:test /usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
>
> :info:test ./src/pprof -test
>
> :info:test AddressAdd 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressAdd 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressSub 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressSub 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressInc 32-bit tests: 5 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test AddressInc 64-bit tests: 10 passes, 0 failures
>
> :info:test PASS
>
> :info:test PASS: low_level_alloc_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: atomicops_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: stacktrace_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_minimal_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: tcm_min_asserts_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_minimal_large_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_minimal_large_heap_fragmentation_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: addressmap_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: system_alloc_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: packed_cache_test
>
> :info:test PASS: frag_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: markidle_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: current_allocated_bytes_test
>
> :info:test PASS: malloc_hook_test
>
> :info:test PASS: malloc_extension_test
>
> :info:test PASS: malloc_extension_c_test
>
> :info:test PASS: page_heap_test
>
> :info:test PASS: pagemap_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: realloc_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: stack_trace_table_test
>
> :info:test PASS: thread_dealloc_unittest
>
> :info:test ./test-driver: line 112: 38625 Abort trap              "$@" >>
> "$log_file" 2>&1
>
> :info:test FAIL: tcmalloc_minimal_debug_unittest
>
> :info:test ./test-driver: line 112: 38645 Abort trap              "$@" >>
> "$log_file" 2>&1
>
> :info:test FAIL: malloc_extension_debug_test
>
> :info:test ./test-driver: line 112: 38664 Abort trap              "$@" >>
> "$log_file" 2>&1
>
> :info:test FAIL: realloc_debug_unittest
>
> :info:test rm -f debugallocation_test.sh
>
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/debugallocation_test.sh
> debugallocation_test.sh
>
> :info:test FAIL: debugallocation_test.sh
>
> :info:test rm -f tcmalloc_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/tcmalloc_unittest.sh tcmalloc_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test PASS: tcm_asserts_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_large_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: tcmalloc_large_heap_fragmentation_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: raw_printer_test
>
> :info:test PASS: sampler_test
>
> :info:test rm -f sampling_test.sh
>
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/sampling_test.sh sampling_test.sh
>
> :info:test PASS: sampling_test.sh
>
> :info:test rm -f heap-profiler_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/heap-profiler_unittest.sh
> heap-profiler_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test PASS: heap-profiler_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test PASS: simple_compat_test
>
> :info:test ./test-driver: line 112: 39897 Abort trap              "$@" >>
> "$log_file" 2>&1
>
> :info:test FAIL: tcmalloc_debug_unittest
>
> :info:test PASS: sampler_debug_test
>
> :info:test rm -f sampling_debug_test.sh
>
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/sampling_test.sh sampling_debug_test.sh
>
> :info:test PASS: sampling_debug_test.sh
>
> :info:test rm -f heap-profiler_debug_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test cp -p ./src/tests/heap-profiler_unittest.sh
> heap-profiler_debug_unittest.sh
>
> :info:test PASS: heap-profiler_debug_unittest.sh
>
> So it seems to perform somewhat worse on PPC, no real surprise here, but
> it does not perform perfectly on Intel either, with my patch removed.
> I do not see anything broken by my patch so far.
>
> Since I have been in touch with upstream, I will bring the problem to
> their attention.
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 12:31 PM Ken Cunningham <
> ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you just don't realize the wreckage you've done.
>>
>> Here is one of hundreds of your typical commits, although this is a
>> simpler one than most, to be honest.
>>
>> The commit below has no purpose other than to allow the port to build as
>> PPC on 10.6. And as that is really only of interest on 10.6-for-PPC, it is
>> specifically for that. You say you want to support "Rosetta" but nobody
>> builds for PPC on 10.6.
>>
>> Here, you've reordered a few instructions, and blocked out some code from
>> running on PPC (presumably because the instructions don't exist on
>> 10.6-for-PPC so it wouldn't compile).
>>
>> However, this changes the code. And it's not simple code, it is
>> complicated code. Does this change the function of the code? Would it still
>> work properly on 10.6 Intel? Does it work at all on 10.6 for PPC? Who can
>> tell? I certainly don't think you have the experience to know. I can't
>> eyeball it as being fine.
>>
>> It used to say:
>>
>> tcmalloc_zone.version = 6;
>> tcmalloc_zone.free_definite_size = &mz_free_definite_size;
>> tcmalloc_zone.memalign = &mz_memalign;
>> tcmalloc_introspection.zone_locked = &mi_zone_locked;
>>
>> and now it says (I think) on Intel:
>>
>> tcmalloc_zone.version = 6;
>> tcmalloc_zone.memalign = &mz_memalign;
>> tcmalloc_zone.free_definite_size = &mz_free_definite_size;
>> tcmalloc_introspection.zone_locked = &mi_zone_locked;
>>
>> and on 10.6-PPC you just get this:
>>
>> tcmalloc_zone.version = 6;
>> tcmalloc_zone.memalign = &mz_memalign;
>>
>> Does reordering those statements change the function? Does it work at all
>> with the two statements removed? It would take me considerable reading to
>> find out. It took me 10 minutes just to figure out what your patch did.
>>
>> And now there it sits in the ports tree, a useless MacPorts-only patch,
>> just waiting to break something. Some poor sot might bring an issue to
>> upstream about this, having no idea that this is not even upstream's code
>> any more.
>>
>> And there are HUNDREDS of these all throughout the codebase that need to
>> be all stripped out.
>>
>> This is unfortunately a huge mess now.
>>
>> K
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/418232ebb3d0e68579364c6246de4464f8f494c9
>>
>> ======
>> --- src/libc_override_osx.h.orig 2021-12-13 14:28:06.000000000 +0800
>> +++ src/libc_override_osx.h 2023-01-19 20:14:36.000000000 +0800
>> @@ -276,9 +276,11 @@
>> MAC_OS_X_VERSION_MAX_ALLOWED >= MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_6
>> // Switch to version 6 on OSX 10.6 to support memalign.
>> tcmalloc_zone.version = 6;
>> - tcmalloc_zone.free_definite_size = &mz_free_definite_size;
>> tcmalloc_zone.memalign = &mz_memalign;
>> +#ifndef __POWERPC__
>> + tcmalloc_zone.free_definite_size = &mz_free_definite_size;
>> tcmalloc_introspection.zone_locked = &mi_zone_locked;
>> +#endif
>>
>> // Request the default purgable zone to force its creation. The
>> // current default zone is registered with the purgable zone for
>> =========
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 2024, at 9:50 AM, Sergey Fedorov <vital.had at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Here we go again.
>> >
>> > 1. To begin with, nobody is submitting 10A190-specific fixes to
>> Macports. They are sitting in my local repo. Please, do not mislead people
>> who are unaware of the matter.
>> >
>> > 2. Standard 10.6.8 release from Apple does support building and running
>> ppc binaries via Rosetta. Nothing unreleased or, as you [mis]frame,
>> “stolen”.
>> > While I think your opposition is completely unjustified, there has been
>> no demands or even active discussion about supporting pre-released builds
>> on 10.6. The point is supporting officially released 10.6.8.
>> >
>> > 3. If anyone did wonder, the whole issue with 10A190 is literally ~20
>> ports altogether, and those fixes amount to a few lines of code to adjust a
>> few assumptions re SDK. Despite it being portrayed as something like half
>> of the Macports tree is broken and needs tailored hacks which gonna break
>> everything. This is nowhere the case.
>> > However, as I said above, nobody demanded 10A190 being supported in the
>> master. Nobody commits 10A190-specific fixups.
>> >
>> > 4. > “The problem was that there were many fragile and sharply
>> increasing *specific* workarounds added into the ports tree solely to
>> support running this PowerPC beta on MacPorts”.
>> >
>> > This accusation keeps being repeated, but it is simply not true. You
>> will not be able to show multiple specific workarounds for 10A190 in
>> Macports master. They are not there.
>> > There were a few specific fixes for standard 10.6.8 Rosetta, largely
>> because the makefile build system misdetects the arch. They are not
>> numerous either, and verily not sharply increasing.
>> >
>> > It will be great not to keep repeating false statements targeting those
>> who are unaware of the facts.
>> >
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20240110/b79b58f4/attachment-0001.htm>