From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: regression in 92392b4 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:58:38 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20080722231745.GD11831@artemis.madism.org> <20080723004108.GB14668@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Pierre Habouzit , Git ML , Junio C Hamano To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 23 02:59:39 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 1KLShe-00084S-DZ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:59:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752259AbYGWA6j (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:58:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751820AbYGWA6i (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:58:38 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:52520 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751802AbYGWA6i (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:58:38 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2008 00:58:36 -0000 Received: from grape.st-and.ac.uk (EHLO grape.st-and.ac.uk) [138.251.155.28] by mail.gmx.net (mp032) with SMTP; 23 Jul 2008 02:58:36 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18OXb01S0wOTXIfAgqEWrYMvTo151xtBbEBgmbLBV inKgOlB6DlYWIi X-X-Sender: gene099@racer In-Reply-To: <20080723004108.GB14668@spearce.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.67 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Reading above shows we got a "fatal: Out of memory, malloc failed" right > before the segfault. What's odd is we segfaulted after we ran out of > memory and should have die'd. > > There's at least two bugs in the above output: > > a) index-pack ran out of memory on a small pull (95 KiB). > b) fetch segfaulted when index-pack failed. > > And this patch will unfortunately address neither of them. :-| Yeah, I thought I had something, but no matter what I tried, I could not find a breakage. Not even valgrind complains. But as I said: it was just a guess. Maybe it will be easier to reproduce by patching the code to malloc() everything that is available first, and then continuing. Ciao, Dscho