[MacPorts] #65188: sbcl: fatal error encountered in SBCL pid 16153: dynamic space too small for core

[MacPorts]

#65188: sbcl: fatal error encountered in SBCL pid 16153: dynamic space too small
for core
---------------------------+----------------------
  Reporter:  barracuda156  |      Owner:  easye
      Type:  defect        |     Status:  assigned
  Priority:  Normal        |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports         |    Version:  2.7.2
Resolution:                |   Keywords:
      Port:  sbcl          |
---------------------------+----------------------

Comment (by barracuda156):

 Replying to [comment:13 easye]:
 > I might be leery of not understanding how Rosetta interacts with my
 debugging. But maybe I should give this a whirl on the 2013 iMac I have
 running Catalina.

 Please do not try it now, it won't work for `sbcl-ppc`, at least right-
 away. The problem is that we are forced to start with pre-built binary,
 and it fails, confusing the arch with `x86_64`.
 I have the same problem with other ports that rely on pre-built boot
 binary: my `ghc-ppc-bootstrap` works on 10.5.8 and 10.6 PPC, but fails on
 Rosetta, and the recent `openjdk7` attempt also fails.

 I tried now in order to let you know if it works. I get these funny
 errors:
 {{{
 CORRUPTION WARNING in SBCL pid 40193:
 Memory fault at ebebebeb (pc=0x0, sp=0x0)
 The integrity of this image is possibly compromised.
 }}}
 I tried to trick `make-config.sh`, forcing `ppc`, but it did not help.

 So yeah, while 90% or more of ports build for PPC on Rosetta, few fail,
 and this is such a case.

 > SBCL development doesn't have tons of resources.  Krystof seems to be
 implying that they don't really have a demand from users.

 Well, Mac community have to blame themselves, honestly speaking, since
 they generally keep away from developers, and then developers get
 impression that no one uses PPC Macs for years. At the same time even more
 obscure archs like MIPS and SPARC remain supported. ''Like, how many users
 of SGI are there?'' (I wish I had Tezro, but it's just crazy expensive.)

 > Once you get something running in MacPorts we can perhaps assess the
 effort required to merge the patches upstream.   Since they don't seem to
 have test coverage under ppc/darwin, figuring out how to give them a CI
 instance they can run to see when they break ppc/darwin would probably win
 over bonus points.

 In principle, I can arrange remote access to my G5 Quad, if someone would
 really want to put some effort into this, but as I said, my hopes are very
 modest.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/65188#comment:14>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for macOS