* [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
@ 2001-10-04 20:33 Markus Dobel
2001-10-05 7:08 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Markus Dobel @ 2001-10-04 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Hi,
vgextend, vgreduce and lvextend segfaulted for me today, too. I'm using
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-95)
which I guess is the reason for those problems.
For vgextend/vgreduce gdb told me, that in vg_extend_reduce "vg_name"
pointed to 0x1. So i did a little debugging and therefore also
inserting the line:
int vg_extend ( char *vg_name, pv_t *pv, vg_t *vg) {
printf("VG Name is %s\n",vg_name ); // this one
return vg_extend_reduce ( vg_name, pv, vg, VG_EXTEND);
}
in vg_extend_reduce.c, the same in vg_reduce(). Without changing
anything else, vgextend and vgreduce work for me now.
Similar in lv_extend_reduce.c:
int lv_extend ( vg_t *vg, lv_t *lv, char *lv_name) {
printf("Extending %s\n", lv_name); // added this line.
return lv_extend_reduce ( vg, lv, lv_name, LV_EXTEND);
}
I don't speak C too fluently, and I don't know if printf() does some
implicit casting or something or if it's gcc 2.96, but maybe this
information helps a bit in finding the mistake.
Regards, Markus
--
Spiegel-Leser wissen mehr. Fuer ein Semester-Abo!
http://www.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~mdobel/semesterabo.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-04 20:33 [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3 Markus Dobel
@ 2001-10-05 7:08 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-05 7:25 ` svetljo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Heinz J . Mauelshagen @ 2001-10-05 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Markus,
go without optimization "-O0" rather than "-O2" in LVMs configure stript
*or* with gcc 2.95.2.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 10:33:43PM +0200, Markus Dobel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> vgextend, vgreduce and lvextend segfaulted for me today, too. I'm using
>
> gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-95)
>
> which I guess is the reason for those problems.
>
> For vgextend/vgreduce gdb told me, that in vg_extend_reduce "vg_name"
> pointed to 0x1. So i did a little debugging and therefore also
> inserting the line:
>
> int vg_extend ( char *vg_name, pv_t *pv, vg_t *vg) {
> printf("VG Name is %s\n",vg_name ); // this one
> return vg_extend_reduce ( vg_name, pv, vg, VG_EXTEND);
> }
>
> in vg_extend_reduce.c, the same in vg_reduce(). Without changing
> anything else, vgextend and vgreduce work for me now.
>
>
> Similar in lv_extend_reduce.c:
>
> int lv_extend ( vg_t *vg, lv_t *lv, char *lv_name) {
> printf("Extending %s\n", lv_name); // added this line.
> return lv_extend_reduce ( vg, lv, lv_name, LV_EXTEND);
> }
>
> I don't speak C too fluently, and I don't know if printf() does some
> implicit casting or something or if it's gcc 2.96, but maybe this
> information helps a bit in finding the mistake.
>
> Regards, Markus
>
> --
> Spiegel-Leser wissen mehr. Fuer ein Semester-Abo!
> http://www.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~mdobel/semesterabo.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
--
Regards,
Heinz -- The LVM Guy --
*** Software bugs are stupid.
Nevertheless it needs not so stupid people to solve them ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Heinz Mauelshagen Sistina Software Inc.
Senior Consultant/Developer Am Sonnenhang 11
56242 Marienrachdorf
Germany
Mauelshagen@Sistina.com +49 2626 141200
FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-05 7:08 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
@ 2001-10-05 7:25 ` svetljo
2001-10-05 7:57 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: svetljo @ 2001-10-05 7:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
is gcc-3.0.1 safe, or i should also use "-o0"
Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>Markus,
>
>go without optimization "-O0" rather than "-O2" in LVMs configure stript
>*or* with gcc 2.95.2.
>
>On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 10:33:43PM +0200, Markus Dobel wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>vgextend, vgreduce and lvextend segfaulted for me today, too. I'm using
>>
>> gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-95)
>>
>>which I guess is the reason for those problems.
>>
>>For vgextend/vgreduce gdb told me, that in vg_extend_reduce "vg_name"
>>pointed to 0x1. So i did a little debugging and therefore also
>>inserting the line:
>>
>>int vg_extend ( char *vg_name, pv_t *pv, vg_t *vg) {
>> printf("VG Name is %s\n",vg_name ); // this one
>> return vg_extend_reduce ( vg_name, pv, vg, VG_EXTEND);
>>}
>>
>>in vg_extend_reduce.c, the same in vg_reduce(). Without changing
>>anything else, vgextend and vgreduce work for me now.
>>
>>
>>Similar in lv_extend_reduce.c:
>>
>>int lv_extend ( vg_t *vg, lv_t *lv, char *lv_name) {
>> printf("Extending %s\n", lv_name); // added this line.
>> return lv_extend_reduce ( vg, lv, lv_name, LV_EXTEND);
>>}
>>
>>I don't speak C too fluently, and I don't know if printf() does some
>>implicit casting or something or if it's gcc 2.96, but maybe this
>>information helps a bit in finding the mistake.
>>
>>Regards, Markus
>>
>>--
>>Spiegel-Leser wissen mehr. Fuer ein Semester-Abo!
>>http://www.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~mdobel/semesterabo.html
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>linux-lvm mailing list
>>linux-lvm@sistina.com
>>http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>>read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-05 7:25 ` svetljo
@ 2001-10-05 7:57 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-05 8:15 ` svetljo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Heinz J . Mauelshagen @ 2001-10-05 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 09:25:56AM +0200, svetljo wrote:
> is gcc-3.0.1 safe, or i should also use "-o0"
Don't have a report for this :-(
Please try it.
>
>
> Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>
> >Markus,
> >
> >go without optimization "-O0" rather than "-O2" in LVMs configure stript
> >*or* with gcc 2.95.2.
> >
> >On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 10:33:43PM +0200, Markus Dobel wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>vgextend, vgreduce and lvextend segfaulted for me today, too. I'm using
> >>
> >> gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-95)
> >>
> >>which I guess is the reason for those problems.
> >>
> >>For vgextend/vgreduce gdb told me, that in vg_extend_reduce "vg_name"
> >>pointed to 0x1. So i did a little debugging and therefore also
> >>inserting the line:
> >>
> >>int vg_extend ( char *vg_name, pv_t *pv, vg_t *vg) {
> >> printf("VG Name is %s\n",vg_name ); // this one
> >> return vg_extend_reduce ( vg_name, pv, vg, VG_EXTEND);
> >>}
> >>
> >>in vg_extend_reduce.c, the same in vg_reduce(). Without changing
> >>anything else, vgextend and vgreduce work for me now.
> >>
> >>
> >>Similar in lv_extend_reduce.c:
> >>
> >>int lv_extend ( vg_t *vg, lv_t *lv, char *lv_name) {
> >> printf("Extending %s\n", lv_name); // added this line.
> >> return lv_extend_reduce ( vg, lv, lv_name, LV_EXTEND);
> >>}
> >>
> >>I don't speak C too fluently, and I don't know if printf() does some
> >>implicit casting or something or if it's gcc 2.96, but maybe this
> >>information helps a bit in finding the mistake.
> >>
> >>Regards, Markus
> >>
> >>--
> >>Spiegel-Leser wissen mehr. Fuer ein Semester-Abo!
> >>http://www.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~mdobel/semesterabo.html
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>linux-lvm mailing list
> >>linux-lvm@sistina.com
> >>http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> >>read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
--
Regards,
Heinz -- The LVM Guy --
*** Software bugs are stupid.
Nevertheless it needs not so stupid people to solve them ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Heinz Mauelshagen Sistina Software Inc.
Senior Consultant/Developer Am Sonnenhang 11
56242 Marienrachdorf
Germany
Mauelshagen@Sistina.com +49 2626 141200
FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-05 7:57 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
@ 2001-10-05 8:15 ` svetljo
2001-10-06 23:18 ` Nils Juergens
2001-10-07 12:30 ` svetljo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: svetljo @ 2001-10-05 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 09:25:56AM +0200, svetljo wrote:
>
>>is gcc-3.0.1 safe, or i should also use "-o0"
>>
>
>Don't have a report for this :-(
>Please try it.
>
it's seems to work
xxscan xxdiplay lvcreate lvremove lvrename lvextend lvreduce work without pb
but i tried yesterday to install 2.4.11-pre2-xfs-cvs lvm-cvs
and vgscan from the initrd segfaults , i can not boot to my LV's with it
probbably it's some other trouble, i'll try with 2.4.11-pre3-xfs
i think it's not relevant but all my VG's are over softRAIDs
>>
>>Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>>
>>>Markus,
>>>
>>>go without optimization "-O0" rather than "-O2" in LVMs configure stript
>>>*or* with gcc 2.95.2.
>>>
>>>On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 10:33:43PM +0200, Markus Dobel wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>vgextend, vgreduce and lvextend segfaulted for me today, too. I'm using
>>>>
>>>> gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-95)
>>>>
>>>>which I guess is the reason for those problems.
>>>>
>>>>For vgextend/vgreduce gdb told me, that in vg_extend_reduce "vg_name"
>>>>pointed to 0x1. So i did a little debugging and therefore also
>>>>inserting the line:
>>>>
>>>>int vg_extend ( char *vg_name, pv_t *pv, vg_t *vg) {
>>>> printf("VG Name is %s\n",vg_name ); // this one
>>>> return vg_extend_reduce ( vg_name, pv, vg, VG_EXTEND);
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>in vg_extend_reduce.c, the same in vg_reduce(). Without changing
>>>>anything else, vgextend and vgreduce work for me now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Similar in lv_extend_reduce.c:
>>>>
>>>>int lv_extend ( vg_t *vg, lv_t *lv, char *lv_name) {
>>>> printf("Extending %s\n", lv_name); // added this line.
>>>> return lv_extend_reduce ( vg, lv, lv_name, LV_EXTEND);
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>I don't speak C too fluently, and I don't know if printf() does some
>>>>implicit casting or something or if it's gcc 2.96, but maybe this
>>>>information helps a bit in finding the mistake.
>>>>
>>>>Regards, Markus
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Spiegel-Leser wissen mehr. Fuer ein Semester-Abo!
>>>>http://www.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~mdobel/semesterabo.html
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>linux-lvm mailing list
>>>>linux-lvm@sistina.com
>>>>http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>>>>read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
>>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>linux-lvm mailing list
>>linux-lvm@sistina.com
>>http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>>read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-05 8:15 ` svetljo
@ 2001-10-06 23:18 ` Nils Juergens
2001-10-08 10:02 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-07 12:30 ` svetljo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Nils Juergens @ 2001-10-06 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Fri, 05.10.01, svetljo <galia@st-peter.stw.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
>
> Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 09:25:56AM +0200, svetljo wrote:
> >
> >>is gcc-3.0.1 safe, or i should also use "-o0"
> >>
> >
> >Don't have a report for this :-(
> >Please try it.
> >
> it's seems to work
>
I tried gcc-3.0.1 with LVM on linux-2.4.10 and had a lot of problems,
but it was no problem in LVM, it works with 2.95.4.
What i was seeing was funny stuff happening to the stack after
a function call causing (in my case) lvremove to segfault.
I have seen this with gcc-3.0.1 before, on another program.
Nils
--
> Nils Juergens | nils@muon.de | icq 7090774 <
> If we all work hard, we can turn this company <
> around 360 degrees -- gruntbert(LOTD) <
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-06 23:18 ` Nils Juergens
@ 2001-10-08 10:02 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-10 21:41 ` Nils Juergens
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Heinz J . Mauelshagen @ 2001-10-08 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Nile,
thanks for the info.
Does LVM compiled under gcc-3.0.1 *without* optimization work?
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 11:18:26PM +0000, Nils Juergens wrote:
> On Fri, 05.10.01, svetljo <galia@st-peter.stw.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
> >
> > Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 09:25:56AM +0200, svetljo wrote:
> > >
> > >>is gcc-3.0.1 safe, or i should also use "-o0"
> > >>
> > >
> > >Don't have a report for this :-(
> > >Please try it.
> > >
> > it's seems to work
> >
>
> I tried gcc-3.0.1 with LVM on linux-2.4.10 and had a lot of problems,
> but it was no problem in LVM, it works with 2.95.4.
>
> What i was seeing was funny stuff happening to the stack after
> a function call causing (in my case) lvremove to segfault.
> I have seen this with gcc-3.0.1 before, on another program.
>
>
> Nils
>
> --
> > Nils Juergens | nils@muon.de | icq 7090774 <
> > If we all work hard, we can turn this company <
> > around 360 degrees -- gruntbert(LOTD) <
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
--
Regards,
Heinz -- The LVM Guy --
*** Software bugs are stupid.
Nevertheless it needs not so stupid people to solve them ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Heinz Mauelshagen Sistina Software Inc.
Senior Consultant/Developer Am Sonnenhang 11
56242 Marienrachdorf
Germany
Mauelshagen@Sistina.com +49 2626 141200
FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-08 10:02 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
@ 2001-10-10 21:41 ` Nils Juergens
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Nils Juergens @ 2001-10-10 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm; +Cc: mauelshagen
On Mon, 08.10.01, "Heinz J . Mauelshagen" <mauelshagen@sistina.com> wrote:
>
> Does LVM compiled under gcc-3.0.1 *without* optimization work?
>
No, with -O0 i get the same seg'fault.
Nils
--
> Nils Juergens | nils@muon.de | icq 7090774 <
> If we all work hard, we can turn this company <
> around 360 degrees -- gruntbert(LOTD) <
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-05 8:15 ` svetljo
2001-10-06 23:18 ` Nils Juergens
@ 2001-10-07 12:30 ` svetljo
2001-10-08 10:03 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: svetljo @ 2001-10-07 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
>
> Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 09:25:56AM +0200, svetljo wrote:
>>
>>> is gcc-3.0.1 safe, or i should also use "-o0"
>>>
>>
>> Don't have a report for this :-(
>> Please try it.
>>
> it's seems to work
>
> xxscan xxdiplay lvcreate lvremove lvrename lvextend lvreduce work
> without pb
> but i tried yesterday to install 2.4.11-pre2-xfs-cvs lvm-cvs
> and vgscan from the initrd segfaults , i can not boot to my LV's with it
> probbably it's some other trouble, i'll try with 2.4.11-pre3-xfs
> i think it's not relevant but all my VG's are over softRAIDs
>
it works with 2.4.11-pre4-xfs-cvs and lvm-cvs from today
i couldn't test vgcreate and vgremove .. ( because i have no spare PV's)
but the other tools work without complaining
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-07 12:30 ` svetljo
@ 2001-10-08 10:03 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-09 0:25 ` Paul Jakma
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Heinz J . Mauelshagen @ 2001-10-08 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 02:30:17PM +0200, svetljo wrote:
> >
> > Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 09:25:56AM +0200, svetljo wrote:
> >>
> >>> is gcc-3.0.1 safe, or i should also use "-o0"
> >>>
> >>
> >> Don't have a report for this :-(
> >> Please try it.
> >>
> > it's seems to work
Well, our impression is that optimizing under gcc > 2.95.2 doesn't seem
to be a good idea.
Have switched optimization off in configure for now.
Change is in CVS and next release.
> >
> > xxscan xxdiplay lvcreate lvremove lvrename lvextend lvreduce work
> > without pb
> > but i tried yesterday to install 2.4.11-pre2-xfs-cvs lvm-cvs
> > and vgscan from the initrd segfaults , i can not boot to my LV's with it
> > probbably it's some other trouble, i'll try with 2.4.11-pre3-xfs
> > i think it's not relevant but all my VG's are over softRAIDs
> >
> it works with 2.4.11-pre4-xfs-cvs and lvm-cvs from today
> i couldn't test vgcreate and vgremove .. ( because i have no spare PV's)
> but the other tools work without complaining
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
--
Regards,
Heinz -- The LVM Guy --
*** Software bugs are stupid.
Nevertheless it needs not so stupid people to solve them ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Heinz Mauelshagen Sistina Software Inc.
Senior Consultant/Developer Am Sonnenhang 11
56242 Marienrachdorf
Germany
Mauelshagen@Sistina.com +49 2626 141200
FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-08 10:03 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
@ 2001-10-09 0:25 ` Paul Jakma
2001-10-09 0:40 ` Luca Berra
2001-10-09 7:42 ` Joe Thornber
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jakma @ 2001-10-09 0:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
> Well, our impression is that optimizing under gcc > 2.95.2 doesn't seem
> to be a good idea.
have you pinned it down to a specific bug in gcc, or is it based on
"doesn't happen with -O0"?
curious... the segv i had showed a stack trace with no obvious
correspondent path in the lvcreate.c code. FWIW, after a glibc
upgrade and reboot lvcreate started working again.
??? weird..
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
What is algebra, exactly? Is it one of those three-cornered things?
-- J.M. Barrie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-09 0:25 ` Paul Jakma
@ 2001-10-09 0:40 ` Luca Berra
2001-10-09 7:42 ` Joe Thornber
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2001-10-09 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:25:47AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>
> > Well, our impression is that optimizing under gcc > 2.95.2 doesn't seem
> > to be a good idea.
>
> have you pinned it down to a specific bug in gcc, or is it based on
> "doesn't happen with -O0"?
>
i rebuilt latest cvs wih mandrake compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Mandrake Linux 8.1 2.96-0.62mdk)
using -O2 -march=athlon and it looks like vgscan is ok
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3
2001-10-09 0:25 ` Paul Jakma
2001-10-09 0:40 ` Luca Berra
@ 2001-10-09 7:42 ` Joe Thornber
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Joe Thornber @ 2001-10-09 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:25:47AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Heinz J . Mauelshagen wrote:
>
> > Well, our impression is that optimizing under gcc > 2.95.2 doesn't seem
> > to be a good idea.
>
> have you pinned it down to a specific bug in gcc, or is it based on
> "doesn't happen with -O0"?
It appears to be a bug in just the redhat 7.1 version of gcc
(2.96-85), which I'm told was not an official release of gcc. There
are a couple of places where LVM has one line wrapper functions; these
are being optimised incorrectly.
- Joe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-10 21:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-10-04 20:33 [linux-lvm] More Segfaults with LVM 1.0.1rc3 Markus Dobel
2001-10-05 7:08 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-05 7:25 ` svetljo
2001-10-05 7:57 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-05 8:15 ` svetljo
2001-10-06 23:18 ` Nils Juergens
2001-10-08 10:02 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-10 21:41 ` Nils Juergens
2001-10-07 12:30 ` svetljo
2001-10-08 10:03 ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2001-10-09 0:25 ` Paul Jakma
2001-10-09 0:40 ` Luca Berra
2001-10-09 7:42 ` Joe Thornber
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).