From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Segmentation fault on http clone, post-1.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:40:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20080624164034.GB4654@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080624130457.GB13696@mithlond.arda.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Teemu Likonen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 24 18:42:28 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KBBaw-0006YC-JK for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761336AbYFXQki (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:40:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761334AbYFXQki (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:40:38 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:3381 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761314AbYFXQkg (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:40:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 4584 invoked by uid 111); 24 Jun 2008 16:40:35 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:40:35 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:40:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080624130457.GB13696@mithlond.arda.local> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:04:57PM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > With the current "master" branch version (29b0d0191) I get segmentation > fault when trying to clone a git repo with http protocol. Tried a couple > of times and it's always reproducible. You can test with the following > repository (about 5.5 MB): > > git clone http://www.iki.fi/tlikonen/voikko.git I can't reproduce the segfault here. > I also build git from the tag v1.5.6 and it seems to work fine, so > I guess the bug was introduced after 1.5.6. That sounds like an excellent opportunity to learn about git-bisect. Can you try bisecting the bug and reporting back the problematic commit? -Peff