On 14/04/2020 14:54, Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
> Batuhan Taskaya <batuhanosmantaskaya@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
>> With the print statements - it does not crash:
> I think this isn't directly relevant with prints but about re-compiling? (just guessing).

I only recompiled the one .c file. With that one file re-compiled -
wqith fprintf statements it succeeds, restore the original .c file (git
checkout -- Objects/whatever.c; make - it fails.

Tomorrow I'll search for the option(s) needed to get (complete) assembly
code listing and try to see (and understand) the difference between what
xlc-v13 and xlc-v16 makes. And, what I shall also test - is to recompile
only this one file using xlc-v13 and see if the make then proceeds normally.

>  Because I experienced when I compile python for the first time on a clean AIX environment, all extension modules failed to build.

I only see this happen (on occasion) when I use make -j4 (or greater) -
and I have seen it happen to a lessor extent with -j2. On the subsequent
passes, whatever it is that setup.py (guessing) really needs is now
available - and the modules build as expected.

This is also why, for the last 4 years I have used my own personal
server - where I control everything (mainly NO other party OSS packaged
software and their artifacts).

>  When I recompiled (with keeping all artifacts from previous build) some of them successfully got compiled. When I try to compile again, most of them successfully compiled. I'm sorry but I don't know why this happens or how to solve it.
why - I do not understand the finer details either, but my guess is that
it is related to linking. I am nearly "amazed" - yet happy - that the
PPC64 AIX 3.X compile succeeds - but acknowledge the 22K+ lines of
warnings is related to the over parallelization of the linking.
> We can always revert that change but I guess that isn't the real problem.

No. I do not think it is the real problem either. And I do not know
compiler behavior well enough. Actually, considering the setting is
still -O0 (aka no optimization) I am surprised it has any effect. if I
understood correctly "no return" is intended to help the optimizer make
"informed" decisions.

As Victor commented earlier - very much looking like a compiler bug.
That said, still do not know what to say/write to software support as a
complaint.

>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue40244>
> _______________________________________
>