Build of rav1e 0.3.5 on Alpine Linux fails for aarch64 and ppc64le with bus error

[OTLabs]

Build for Alpine Linux [1] fails with same error for both architectures:

365    Finished release [optimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 13m 46s
366 Bus error (core dumped)
367 >>> ERROR: rav1e: build failed

Build log for aarch64 is here [2], for ppc64le is here [3].

[1] https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/merge_requests/16346
[2] https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/otlabs/aports/-/jobs/292026#L366
[3] https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/otlabs/aports/-/jobs/283623#L369

[lu-zero]

Can you please provide the stand alone command that is failing? Which kind of hardware is used to run those jobs?

[OTLabs]

Sure, with pleasure.

I use:

build() {
	cargo build --release --frozen
	cargo cbuild --release --frozen --prefix /usr
}

It is the same build procedure used to successfully build rav1e 0.3.4.

I will investigate about used hardware and comment later.

[lu-zero]

So to reproduce it I'd have to run cargo cbuild (which cargo-c version?) on native power9 and aarch64?

[OTLabs]

cargo-c (0.7.0-r0) was used.

Sorry, I still have no info about hardware.

[barrbrain]

From the build logs:

(12/15) Installing cargo-c (0.7.0-r0)

[Ikke]

Running this on our CI host (qemu) as our builders (LXC on baremetal) results in the same:

Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
0x0000fffff7be64d0 in ?? () from /usr/bin/../lib/libcrypto.so.1.1

Our aarch64 builder runs on Ampere eMAG servers, but as this seems to happen on both qemu as baremetal, it does not seem to be hardware related.

[lu-zero]

It seems that the openssl provider is doing something fishy.

[Ikke]

It's strange though that we get a SIGBUS normally, and a SIGILL when running under gdb.

[lu-zero]

Can you confirm that the current cargo-c release does not show the problem?

[OTLabs]

Currently rav1e 0.4.0 was built with cago-c 0.7.1 without any problem.

[OTLabs]

Tried to build rav1e 0.4.1 with cargo-c 0.8.0 and got no any .so libraries built. I was expecting to get: librav1e.so.0 and librav1e.so.0.4.1.

[lu-zero]

Could you please open an issue on cargo-c ? I think it is due how the musl target is managed, if you want shared libraries on a musl-based distribution it requires probably some cli overrides.

[OTLabs]

Done! lu-zero/cargo-c#180

[OTLabs]

rav1e 0.4.1 with cargo-c 0.8.0 builds as expected with --library-type staticlib --library-type cdylib.