[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Launchpad has imported 6 comments from the remote bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544358. If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. On 2009-12-04T17:34:33+00:00 nucleo wrote: Description of problem: cryptest from cryptopp hangs up when built for fc13. cryptest is running in %check section of cryptopp.spec, so cryptopp can't be built for fc13. For fc12 cryptopp builds fine. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): binutils 2.20.51.0.2-8.fc13 See the same issues here: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/461303 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/32 On 2009-12-09T12:09:27+00:00 Nick wrote: Hi Alec, I have imported Alan Modra's patch for PR 10856 into the devel binutils rpm. Please try using the latest release (2.20.51.0.2-9), and if you still have problems, let us know. Cheers Nick Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/33 On 2009-12-09T15:06:21+00:00 nucleo wrote: Hi Nick, With binutils 2.20.51.0.2-9.fc13 cryptopp test not fails. Finally cryptopp-5.6.1-0.1.svn479.fc13 built: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=143094 Should I close this bug? Alexey Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/34 On 2009-12-13T21:03:18+00:00 Zooko wrote: This page on launchpad is tracking the progress of this issue through several different operating systems and open source projects that are affected by this bug. I added a link to this ticket on bugzilla.redhat.com: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fedora/+source/binutils/+bug/461303 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/37 On 2010-04-21T16:53:22+00:00 Michal wrote: Notes: Changing version to 13 from 12, since wrt comment 0 it is clear that F-13 had that issue not F-12. Closing, we have update. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/39 On 2012-01-11T19:58:39+00:00 Zooko wrote: If anybody reading this has the authority to change the status of tickets in launchpad, please mark this as fixed there: https://bugs.launchpad.net/fedora/+source/binutils/+bug/461303 . Thanks! Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/45 ** Changed in: binutils (Fedora) Status: In Progress => Fix Released ** Changed in: binutils (Fedora) Importance: Unknown => Medium -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 Title: generates-bad-code regression To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Could a project maintainer or bug supervisor please change the MinGW bug status from In Progress to Fix Released or authorize me to do so? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 Title: generates-bad-code regression To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Could a project maintainer or bug supervisor please change the Fedora bug status from In Progress to Fix Released or authorize me to do so? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 Title: generates-bad-code regression To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Launchpad has imported 14 comments from the remote bug at http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856. If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. On 2009-10-27T23:54:55+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: The patch to fix PR gas/10704 causes sha.cpp assembled in a way that causes the sha-256 test not to terminate. Undoing the patch runs the test fine. Replacing the sha.o with one assembled with gas having this patch reverted lets the test pass. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/17 On 2009-10-27T23:55:37+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: Created attachment 4329 diff of disassembled files Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/18 On 2009-10-27T23:56:18+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: Created attachment 4330 sha .s and .o files Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/19 On 2009-10-28T02:53:32+00:00 Alan Modra wrote: Simpler testcase: .text .intel_syntax noprefix .space 5480 .byte 0,0,0 0: .space 1620 .byte 0 1: .space 2468 nop jne 1b .space 52 nop jl 0b Without the .intel_syntax this assembles OK. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/20 On 2009-10-28T08:21:59+00:00 Cvs-commit wrote: Subject: Bug 10856 CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Changes by: amo...@sourceware.org 2009-10-28 08:21:45 Modified files: gas: ChangeLog expr.c gas/testsuite : ChangeLog gas/testsuite/gas/i386: intelpic.d Log message: PR gas/10856 * expr.c (resolve_expression): Only add left value to O_symbol expression when the symbol is undefined and different from the original symbol. Simplify negative logic. * gas/i386/intelpic.d: Correct. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.3999r2=1.4000 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/expr.c.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.78r2=1.79 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.1573r2=1.1574 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/testsuite/gas/i386/intelpic.d.diff?cvsroot=srcr1=1.3r2=1.4 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/21 On 2009-10-28T08:24:03+00:00 Cvs-commit wrote: Subject: Bug 10856 CVSROOT:/cvs/src Module name:src Branch: binutils-2_20-branch Changes by: amo...@sourceware.org 2009-10-28 08:23:49 Modified files: gas: ChangeLog expr.c Log message: PR gas/10856 * expr.c (resolve_expression): Only add left value to O_symbol expression when the symbol is undefined and different from the original symbol. Simplify negative logic. Patches: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=srconly_with_tag=binutils-2_20-branchr1=1.3938.2.27r2=1.3938.2.28 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/expr.c.diff?cvsroot=srconly_with_tag=binutils-2_20-branchr1=1.77.2.1r2=1.77.2.2 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/22 On 2009-10-28T10:03:48+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: checked that the sha test passes, when sha.o is built with this patch. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/23 On 2009-10-28T10:08:48+00:00 Alan Modra wrote: . Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/24 On 2009-11-05T12:14:29+00:00 Alan Modra wrote: *** Bug 10906 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/31 On 2009-12-13T17:55:22+00:00 David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: Any indication of when this fix is likely to get into a release? The more OS distributions as 2.20 goes into, the more problems this bug will cause. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/461303/comments/32 On 2009-12-13T21:00:41+00:00 Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: This launchpad page tracks the increasing number of
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
binutils 2.20.1, released 2010-03-03, does *not* have the ChangeLog entry from http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856#c5 but *does* have the patch to expr.c. Weird. But I guess it is fixed in binutils 2.20.1. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 Title: generates-bad-code regression -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Fixed in MingW's upgrade to binutils 2.20.51.20100613 ** Changed in: mingw Importance: Unknown = Undecided ** Changed in: mingw Status: Unknown = New ** Changed in: mingw Remote watch: SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 = None ** Changed in: mingw Status: New = Fix Released ** Changed in: mingw Importance: Undecided = Unknown ** Changed in: mingw Status: Fix Released = Unknown ** Changed in: mingw Remote watch: None = SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 ** Changed in: mingw Importance: Unknown = Undecided ** Changed in: mingw Status: Unknown = New ** Changed in: mingw Remote watch: SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 = None ** Bug watch added: SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=2913876 ** Changed in: mingw Importance: Undecided = Unknown ** Changed in: mingw Status: New = Unknown ** Changed in: mingw Remote watch: None = SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 ** Changed in: mingw Importance: Unknown = Undecided ** Changed in: mingw Status: Unknown = New ** Changed in: mingw Remote watch: SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 = None ** Changed in: mingw Importance: Undecided = Unknown ** Changed in: mingw Status: New = Unknown ** Changed in: mingw Remote watch: None = SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Changed in: pycryptopp Status: Unknown = Fix Released -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Bug watch added: Red Hat Bugzilla #544358 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544358 ** Also affects: binutils (Fedora) via https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544358 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Changed in: binutils (Fedora) Status: Unknown = In Progress -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Bug watch added: SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=2913876 ** Also affects: mingw via http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=2913876 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown ** Also affects: pycryptopp via http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/31 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Changed in: tahoe-lafs Status: New = Fix Released -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Changed in: tahoe-lafs Status: Unknown = New -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Changed in: binutils Status: Unknown = Fix Released -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
the updated package builds libcrypto++, same fix for lucid is in 2.20-1ubuntu1, now in lucid. -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Tags added: verification-done ** Tags removed: verification-needed ** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released ** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu) Milestone: karmic-updates = None -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Confirmed on the pycryptopp buildbot: binutils 2.20-0ubuntu1: http://allmydata.org/buildbot-pycryptopp/builders/linux-amd64-ubuntu- karmic-yukyuk/builds/16 , 2.20-0ubuntu2: http://allmydata.org/buildbot- pycryptopp/builders/linux-amd64-ubuntu-karmic-yukyuk/builds/17 -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Accepted binutils into karmic-proposed, the package will build now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance! ** Tags added: verification-needed -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Also affects: binutils (Ubuntu Karmic) Importance: Medium Status: Confirmed ** Also affects: libcrypto++ (Ubuntu Karmic) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu Karmic) Status: Confirmed = In Progress -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Changed in: libcrypto++ (Ubuntu Karmic) Status: New = Invalid ** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu Karmic) Milestone: None = karmic-updates -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
I reviewed the package in -proposed. Will accept right after karmic release. What is the test case here? libcrypto++ failing the tests (and build) in karmic final, and succeeding with the proposed update? ** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu Karmic) Status: In Progress = Fix Committed ** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu Karmic) Assignee: (unassigned) = Matthias Klose (doko) -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Wei Dai, the author of Crypto++, has kindly volunteered to investigate: http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users/msg/e49e6e8a0adf4630 He asks: How can we find out who submitted the the binutil patch and contact him or her? -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Please also see my response where I say that I don't know where the patches come from and where I speculate about blacklisting this particular version of GNU assembler: http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users/msg/fef83f2a64c797cc -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
On 27.10.2009 16:44, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: Wei Dai, the author of Crypto++, has kindly volunteered to investigate: http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users/msg/e49e6e8a0adf4630 did you identify the patch causing the failure? He asks: How can we find out who submitted the the binutil patch and contact him or her? binut...@sourceware.org, but it would be good to identify the relevant checkin first. See the ChangeLog files in the various subdirectories. -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Bug watch added: Sourceware.org Bugzilla #10856 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856 ** Also affects: binutils via http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown ** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided = Medium ** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu) Status: New = Confirmed ** Also affects: libcrypto++ (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Package changed: ubuntu = gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu) ** Tags added: regression-potential -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Bug watch added: allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ #31 http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/31 ** Also affects: tahoe-lafs via http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/31 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Hold on, the reason that I stated that g++ 4.4.1-3ubuntu3 built good code is as follows: 1. The resulting libcrypto++8 is in Karmic, so it must have passed its self-test which happens automatically when you build it, right? 2. If you link pycryptopp to the resulting libcrypto++8 which is in Karmic, the pycryptopp passes all of its self-tests including under valgrind: here is the builder which does this: http://allmydata.org /buildbot-pycryptopp/builders/linux-amd64-ubuntu-karmic-yukyuk-syslib (in contrast, here is the builder which attempts to build the same version of pycryptopp but compile Crypto++ itself from source instead of using the libcrypto++8 which is included in Karmic: http://allmydata.org /buildbot-pycryptopp/builders/linux-amd64-ubuntu-karmic-yukyuk . That one fails.) However, I just now finished getting a pbuilder chroot configured with g++-4.4 4.4.1-3ubuntu3 and when I pbuild libcrypto++8 then it hangs in its SHA self-test! So, how did libcrypto++8 as built by g++ 4.4.1-3ubuntu3 pass its self tests? Or *did* it pass its self-tests before it went into Karmic? -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Okay it looks like this is an issue in binutils, not in g++. As stated in the previous comment I installed the version of g++-4.4 and all of its many dependencies that had been used back in 2009-09-18 to build libcrypto++8, and the build still fails. Then I changed binutils from the current (2.20-0ubuntu1) to the 2009-09-18 vintage: 2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1 . Now the build passes! So to reiterate the only change I made in my pbuilder root was to install binutils 2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1, replacing binutils 2.20-0ubuntu1, and this made the pbuild of libcrypto++8 go from hanging during the SHA validation to passing. -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Okay I just did this: Preparing to replace binutils 2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1 (using binutils_2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... And am now pbuilding again. Now we'll see if the regression happened between 2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1 and 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 or between 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 and 2.20-0ubuntu1. -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Okay, the result is that 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 also misbuilds libcrypto++8. Next I will try the point halfway between the last known good version (2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1) and the earliest known bad version (2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1). That would be... 2.19.91.20091003-0ubuntu1 . And while it is building I am going to take a nap. -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Oh by the way this is all on amd64. -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Okay, 2.19.91.20091003-0ubuntu1 passed. So the regression must be between 2.19.91.20091003-0ubuntu1 and 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 . Next I will try 2.19.91.20091005-0ubuntu2 . -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
okay 2.19.91.20091005-0ubuntu2 built it correctly. We must be getting close to the regressing version. Next I'll try 2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1 . -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Preparing to replace binutils 2.19.91.20091005-0ubuntu2 (using binutils_2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... Okay it passed. This implies that the upgrade from 2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1 to 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 introduced this regression. I'll just double-check that 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 still builds libcrypto++8 wrong... -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
Preparing to replace binutils 2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1 (using binutils_2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... Yep. 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 builds a libcrypto++8 that hangs during the SHA validation in its self-tests. What's the next step? How can we get a diff from 2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1 to 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1? -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
** Package changed: gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu) = binutils (Ubuntu) -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33666914/binutils_2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1_2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1.diff.gz (linked from https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1) -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
note that libcrypto++ does include a fair bit of asm code for amd64. -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
okay, i'm not at all familiar with binutils, but just studying which
files were changed by this patch and excluding build, packaging,
translation, and non-amd64 arches, i am left with these three patches:
--- binutils-2.19.91.20091006/gas/read.c2009-09-15 13:27:21.0
+0100
+++ binutils-2.19.91.20091014/gas/read.c2009-10-07 09:35:59.0
+0100
@@ -3911,7 +3911,7 @@
if (*input_line_pointer == ',')
{
++input_line_pointer;
- expression_and_evaluate (exp);
+ expression (exp);
}
switch (exp.X_op)
{
--- binutils-2.19.91.20091006/gas/symbols.c 2009-09-27 10:57:37.0
+0100
+++ binutils-2.19.91.20091014/gas/symbols.c 2009-10-07 09:36:44.0
+0100
@@ -1514,10 +1514,7 @@
}
}
- /* Never change a defined symbol. */
- if (symbolP-bsym-section == undefined_section
- || symbolP-bsym-section == expr_section)
- *symbolPP = symbolP;
+ *symbolPP = symbolP;
*valueP = expr.X_add_number;
*segP = symbolP-bsym-section;
*fragPP = symbolP-sy_frag;
--- binutils-2.19.91.20091006/ld/scripttempl/elf.sc 2009-09-29
10:51:03.0 +0100
+++ binutils-2.19.91.20091014/ld/scripttempl/elf.sc 2009-10-09
06:43:07.0 +0100
@@ -110,42 +110,42 @@
DATA_SEGMENT_RELRO_END=. = DATA_SEGMENT_RELRO_END (${SEPARATE_GOTPLT-0},
.);
fi
if test -z ${INITIAL_READONLY_SECTIONS}${CREATE_SHLIB}; then
- INITIAL_READONLY_SECTIONS=.interp: { *(.interp) }
+ INITIAL_READONLY_SECTIONS=.interp ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.interp) }
fi
if test -z $PLT; then
- IPLT=.iplt : { *(.iplt) }
- PLT=.plt : { *(.plt)${IREL_IN_PLT+ *(.iplt)} }
+ IPLT=.iplt ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.iplt) }
+ PLT=.plt ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.plt)${IREL_IN_PLT+ *(.iplt)} }
${IREL_IN_PLT-$IPLT}
fi
test -n ${DATA_PLT-${BSS_PLT-text}} TEXT_PLT=yes
if test -z $GOT; then
if test -z $SEPARATE_GOTPLT; then
-GOT=.got : { *(.got.plt) *(.igot.plt) *(.got) *(.igot) }
+GOT=.got ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.got.plt) *(.igot.plt) *(.got)
*(.igot) }
else
-GOT=.got : { *(.got) *(.igot) }
-GOTPLT=.got.plt : { *(.got.plt) *(.igot.plt) }
+GOT=.got ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.got) *(.igot) }
+GOTPLT=.got.plt ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.got.plt) *(.igot.plt) }
fi
fi
-REL_IFUNC=.rel.ifunc : { *(.rel.ifunc) }
-RELA_IFUNC=.rela.ifunc: { *(.rela.ifunc) }
-REL_IPLT=.rel.iplt :
+REL_IFUNC=.rel.ifunc${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.rel.ifunc) }
+RELA_IFUNC=.rela.ifunc ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.rela.ifunc) }
+REL_IPLT=.rel.iplt ${RELOCATING-0} :
{
${RELOCATING+${CREATE_SHLIB-PROVIDE_HIDDEN
(${USER_LABEL_PREFIX}__rel_iplt_start = .);}}
*(.rel.iplt)
${RELOCATING+${CREATE_SHLIB-PROVIDE_HIDDEN
(${USER_LABEL_PREFIX}__rel_iplt_end = .);}}
}
-RELA_IPLT=.rela.iplt :
+RELA_IPLT=.rela.iplt${RELOCATING-0} :
{
${RELOCATING+${CREATE_SHLIB-PROVIDE_HIDDEN
(${USER_LABEL_PREFIX}__rela_iplt_start = .);}}
*(.rela.iplt)
${RELOCATING+${CREATE_SHLIB-PROVIDE_HIDDEN
(${USER_LABEL_PREFIX}__rela_iplt_end = .);}}
}
-DYNAMIC=.dynamic : { *(.dynamic) }
-RODATA=.rodata: { *(.rodata${RELOCATING+ .rodata.*
.gnu.linkonce.r.*}) }
+DYNAMIC=.dynamic ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.dynamic) }
+RODATA=.rodata ${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.rodata${RELOCATING+ .rodata.*
.gnu.linkonce.r.*}) }
DATARELRO=.data.rel.ro : { *(.data.rel.ro.local*
.gnu.linkonce.d.rel.ro.local.*) *(.data.rel.ro* .gnu.linkonce.d.rel.ro.*) }
DISCARDED=/DISCARD/ : { *(.note.GNU-stack) *(.gnu_debuglink) *(.gnu.lto_*) }
if test -z ${NO_SMALL_DATA}; then
- SBSS=.sbss :
+ SBSS=.sbss ${RELOCATING-0} :
{
${RELOCATING+${SBSS_START_SYMBOLS}}
${CREATE_SHLIB+*(.sbss2 .sbss2.* .gnu.linkonce.sb2.*)}
@@ -154,29 +154,29 @@
*(.scommon)
${RELOCATING+${SBSS_END_SYMBOLS}}
}
- SBSS2=.sbss2 : { *(.sbss2${RELOCATING+ .sbss2.*
.gnu.linkonce.sb2.*}) }
+ SBSS2=.sbss2${RELOCATING-0} : { *(.sbss2${RELOCATING+ .sbss2.*
.gnu.linkonce.sb2.*}) }
SDATA=/* We want the small data sections together, so single-instruction
offsets
can access them all, and initialized data all before uninitialized, so
we can shorten the on-disk segment size. */
- .sdata :
+ .sdata${RELOCATING-0} :
{
${RELOCATING+${SDATA_START_SYMBOLS}}
${CREATE_SHLIB+*(.sdata2 .sdata2.* .gnu.linkonce.s2.*)}
*(.sdata${RELOCATING+ .sdata.* .gnu.linkonce.s.*})
}
- SDATA2=.sdata2:
+ SDATA2=.sdata2 ${RELOCATING-0} :
{
${RELOCATING+${SDATA2_START_SYMBOLS}}
*(.sdata2${RELOCATING+ .sdata2.* .gnu.linkonce.s2.*})
}
- REL_SDATA=.rel.sdata : { *(.rel.sdata${RELOCATING+ .rel.sdata.*
.rel.gnu.linkonce.s.*}) }
- .rela.sdata: { *(.rela.sdata${RELOCATING+ .rela.sdata.*
.rela.gnu.linkonce.s.*}) }
-
[Bug 461303] Re: generates-bad-code regression
I posted to the Crypto++ mailing list asking for help and warning them not to upgrade to Karmic: http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users/browse_thread/thread/36ceee8e8f500fd3 -- generates-bad-code regression https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
