From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: To: "John David Anglin" Cc: willy@debian.org, carlos@baldric.uwo.ca, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] malloc limits In-Reply-To: Message from "John David Anglin" of "Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:24:54 EDT." <200209210524.g8L5OtNw006246@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> References: <200209210524.g8L5OtNw006246@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:33:52 -0600 From: Grant Grundler Message-Id: <20020921223352.C64324829@dsl2.external.hp.com> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: "John David Anglin" wrote: > It's the address of the next contiguous chunk. This is roughly the sum > of the address plus the size of the chunk to be freed. The segv occurs > loading the size of the next chunk using the address. I'll assume this is happening on the A500 (PA2.0) and wonder if it's a signed/unsigned bug. Look closely at how PA2.0 extends register values and make sure code is treating addresses and sizes as unsigned. > I haven't been successful debugging the code directly. I can get the > code to seg fault by setting SIG37 to nostop noprint, but the debugger > seems to think the fault occurs following the INLINE_SYSCALL in > __sigsuspend. However, the address points to an ldi instruction > which can't seg fault, so I don't know what's up. Not all instructions trap precisely. FP ops definitely do not and I thought a few others didn't either. I'm wondering what happens when unaligned access should segfault. Does the unaligned code handle check for that? I'll take a quick look at that code path. thanks, grant