Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-12 Thread William Harrington
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:31:02 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: Jürg Billeter wrote: The patch speaks for itself, BTW, changing the problematic line to: read(fd, reiserfsb, sizeof(reiserfsb)) == sizeof(reiserfsb) seems to also fix the problem. It's simpler and is more in line with the

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-12 Thread Ag Hatzim
William Harrington([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 03:30:11PM -0500: On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:31:02 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: J?rg Billeter wrote: Works fine out of the box. Works for me also,but still needs the cramfs patch though. --

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jürg Billeter
On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 10:35 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: Better still, we should just find the bug and fix it. Why pessimize the whole of Util-linux just because of an intermittent bug in cfdisk? It's a bad workaround IMHO. Surely someone who is able to reproduce the crash can obtain a backtrace

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jürg Billeter
On Fre, 2005-09-02 at 20:04 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: matthew Date: 2005-09-02 16:01:00 -0600 (Fri, 02 Sep 2005) New Revision: 6800 Modified: branches/gcc4/BOOK/chapter01/changelog.xml branches/gcc4/BOOK/chapter06/util-linux.xml Log:

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jürg Billeter
On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 08:24 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: Maybe it wouldn't be that unwise to test with current 4.0 (or maybe also 4.1) snapshot as it may already have been fixed. Will test that 4.0-20050901 and 4.1-20050902 are still affected. -- Jürg Billeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] --

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jürg Billeter
On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 08:24 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 10:35 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: Better still, we should just find the bug and fix it. Why pessimize the whole of Util-linux just because of an intermittent bug in cfdisk? It's a bad workaround IMHO. Surely

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Greg Schafer
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:37:30 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The problem occured on all systems with linux partitions that don't have a ext2/ext3, xfs, or jfs

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jürg Billeter
On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 18:53 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:37:30 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The problem occured on all systems with

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Matthew Burgess
Jürg Billeter wrote: The patch speaks for itself, I have no idea why this doesn't crash with other gcc versions / optimization settings, must be luck... The attached script should pinpoint the particular setting that tickles the crash, in case you're really interested in finding out! IIRC,

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Chris Staub
Jürg Billeter wrote: On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 18:53 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:37:30 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The problem occured on

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Chris Staub
Greg Schafer wrote: Jürg Billeter wrote: It's not as easy as it sounds. As it's very likely that it's a GCC optimization bug you can't really debug the compiled cfdisk as the generated code is wrong. The stack after the SEGV is completely destroyed, gdb doesn't help at all. It seems as if

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Andrew Benton
Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The problem occured on all systems with linux partitions that don't have a ext2/ext3, xfs, or jfs filesystem as the crash happens during the

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jürg Billeter
On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 05:26 -0400, Chris Staub wrote: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:37:30 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The problem occured on all systems with linux

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Chris Staub
Chris Staub wrote: Jürg Billeter wrote: On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 18:53 +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:37:30 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Chris Staub
Chris Staub wrote: Jürg Billeter wrote: On Sam, 2005-09-03 at 05:26 -0400, Chris Staub wrote: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:37:30 +0200, Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The problem occured on all systems with linux partitions that don't have a ext2/ext3, xfs, or jfs filesystem as the crash happens during the

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Greg Schafer
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Jürg Billeter wrote: Ok, it's not a gcc bug at all... The SEGV seems to have destroyed some debug info on the stack and that's the reason gdb didn't help. The problem occured on all systems with linux partitions that don't have a ext2/ext3, xfs, or jfs filesystem as

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Greg Schafer wrote: very often. So in summary, if type 83 partitions exist and they have reiserfs OR if they don't have any filesystem on them whatsoever, the problematic code path is taken and the crash is likely to occur. Hope this makes sense. Yes, very much. Thanks. And of course, now that

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Greg Schafer
Jürg Billeter wrote: The patch speaks for itself, BTW, changing the problematic line to: read(fd, reiserfsb, sizeof(reiserfsb)) == sizeof(reiserfsb) seems to also fix the problem. It's simpler and is more in line with the other filesystem checks in that function. Maybe the above variant is

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Archaic
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 08:24:23PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Greg Schafer wrote: very often. So in summary, if type 83 partitions exist and they have reiserfs OR if they don't have any filesystem on them whatsoever, the problematic code path is taken and the crash is likely to occur. Hope

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Archaic wrote: Even though this bug seems to be tickled by gcc-4, would it be prudent to add this to trunk as well since it's running the same version of util-linux? Well, does anyone have a recent build of trunk with a reiser* partition? Perhaps we could check to see if cfdisk bombs there

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-03 Thread Archaic
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 08:36:40PM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Well, does anyone have a recent build of trunk with a reiser* partition? Perhaps we could check to see if cfdisk bombs there too? Anyway, recalling Matt's previous email, gcc4 was slated to move to trunk in a matter of a

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-02 Thread Jeremy Huntwork
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: Indeed. I don't have a lot of time (or even any debugging tools installed atm) so I haven't had a chance to do that yet. But it does seem a better course to take if we can spot the exact problem. Hrm. Does this spark anything with anyone? -- JH execve(./fdisk/cfdisk,

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-02 Thread Greg Schafer
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: I'm only guessing here, but.. read(3, \353H\220\320\274\0|\373P\7P\37\374\276\33|\277\33\6PW..., 512) = 512 ioctl(3, 0x301, 0xbfd12110) = 0 It seems the above is a read of the 1st 512 bytes of /dev/hda ie: the MBR. The next few reads appears to be the

Re: GCC4 Util-linux sed [Was: Re: r6800]

2005-09-02 Thread Greg Schafer
Greg Schafer wrote: _llseek(3, 1028225536, [1028225536], SEEK_SET) = 0 read(3, ReIsEr4\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\20\2725\3511\237\246M\204..., 1024) = 1024 Here is a completely untested patch. Someone wanna try it? It's based on previous problems we had with sfdisk and GCC-3.4.x It's a long