Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/wget%40sunsite.dk/msg01385.html
>
> Looks like it; at least a related one. I'm not sure it's OK to just
> insert a va_end; va_start in this case though (the duplicate call happened
> in a function that had ap passed a
> > But it'll come up again. This isn't the first time I've seen these varargs
> > bugs. My most confusing one involved setjmp/longjmp to achieve the va_list
> > reuse :-)
>
> Should be possible to have a GCC warning when same va_list was used more
> that once as in vlog_and_print() ?
Nope. You co
> > What about reassigning it to wget (or whatever the original package was)?
> > The bug is still out there ...
>
> Wow, what a discussion.
>
> Uh, I missed the start of this thread, but do you perchance mean
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/wget%40sunsite.dk/msg01385.html
Looks like it; at le
Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This is not a bug in gcc, or glibc. It's a feature of the PPC
> > > va_list implementation, mandated by the PPC ABI that we
> > > need to follow (otherwise all sort of hell breaks loose).
> >
> > Thanks. I'll close the bug now.
>
> What about re
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:05:59PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > What about reassigning it to wget (or whatever the original package was)?
> > > The bug is still out there ...
> >
> > I presume there is already a bug filed for that package, else the
> > problem would not have been known to
> > What about reassigning it to wget (or whatever the original package was)?
> > The bug is still out there ...
>
> I presume there is already a bug filed for that package, else the
> problem would not have been known to begin with.
Doesn't seem like it. #107081 was against gcc before you reass
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 07:48:46PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > This is not a bug in gcc, or glibc. It's a feature of the PPC
> > > va_list implementation, mandated by the PPC ABI that we
> > > need to follow (otherwise all sort of hell breaks loose).
> >
> > Thanks. I'll close the bug now
> > This is not a bug in gcc, or glibc. It's a feature of the PPC
> > va_list implementation, mandated by the PPC ABI that we
> > need to follow (otherwise all sort of hell breaks loose).
>
> Thanks. I'll close the bug now.
What about reassigning it to wget (or whatever the original package was)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 07:19:30PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > And stdarg doesn't have these issues? The problem is that va_list isn't a
> > > pointer on powerpc so it gets modified across calls. Saving the initial
> > > va_list state and restoring it before reuse should solve this for vara
> > And stdarg doesn't have these issues? The problem is that va_list isn't a
> > pointer on powerpc so it gets modified across calls. Saving the initial
> > va_list state and restoring it before reuse should solve this for varargs.
>
> No, stdarg and vararg are both implemented in gcc, so the bug
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 06:59:22PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > I realise that both reuse same va_list more that once. The following
> > > probram demonstrate this bug:
> >
> > stdarg is implemented in gcc, AFAIK.
>
> And stdarg doesn't have these
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I realise that both reuse same va_list more that once. The following
> > probram demonstrate this bug:
>
> stdarg is implemented in gcc, AFAIK.
And stdarg doesn't have these issues? The problem is that va_list isn't a
pointer on powerpc so it gets modif
reassign 107081 gcc-2.95
thanks
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Edouard G. Parmelan wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.2.3-5
> Severity: important
>
> Hi,
>
> On PowerPC wget coredump into vfprintf() (bug #104325).
> MasqMail-0.1.15-1 also coredump with same stack trace.
>
> I real
13 matches
Mail list logo
