From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Li Subject: Re: sparse segfault on ppc64. Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:03:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20070322070354.GA22151@chrisli.org> References: <20070322063600.GD15364@redhat.com> <20070322073344.GU4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from sccrmhc15.comcast.net ([204.127.200.85]:56749 "EHLO sccrmhc15.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753155AbXCVHmA (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 03:42:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070322073344.GU4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: Dave Jones , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 07:33:44AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > Segfault is new (which version?); the fscking mess in altivec is not, but > it (a) doesn't depend on host sparse is ran on; (b) shouldn't lead to > segfaults. Altivec extensions are undocumented and fortunately used only > in one place in the tree. You should get sparse errors, but it shouldn't > die on those. I think the segfault is likely to cause by my recent change in the parser. Dave, can you get a backtrace of the segfault? Even better if you can give me a small test case which I can reproduce it on x86. My guess it is cause by the bad_ctype related changes. Chris