I solved the mistery (at least partially).... What is happening is that p_ur itself is already null. I will send a new patch that checks both the p_ur and the signal pointer.
Yael -----Original Message----- From: Eitan Zahavi Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:21 PM To: Greg Lindahl; openib-general@openib.org Subject: RE: [openib-general] RE: [PATCH] Opensm - fix segfault on exit - cont. Hi Greg, > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:11:12AM +0200, Yael Kalka wrote: > > > > - if (&p_ur->signal) > > > + if (&p_ur->signal != NULL) > > Aren't these 2 statements required to execute the same according to > the C standard? [EZ] We were puzzled too. But there is nothing stronger then seeing it happening. What could break our compiler? Hmmm. > > I wrote a tiny test program and gcc4.0.0 as distributed with Fedora > Core 3 generated identical assembly code for both. > > -- greg > > _______________________________________________ > openib-general mailing list > openib-general@openib.org > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general