From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: sparse segfault on ppc64. Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:04:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20070322160421.GH15364@redhat.com> References: <20070322063600.GD15364@redhat.com> <20070322073344.GU4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20070322070354.GA22151@chrisli.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:45779 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933738AbXCVQEu (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:04:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070322070354.GA22151@chrisli.org> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: Al Viro , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:03:54AM -0700, Christopher Li wrote: > 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. I did battle with our ppc64 buildhost last night to try and coax it into giving me a coredump, no luck. And as I don't have gcc in that chroot, I couldn't build it natively. Given this is altivec stuff, I didn't try building it on x86. At which point I admitted defeat and turned in for the night ;) I'll see if I can force it into something buildable on x86 later, but first I'll see if I can get a useful shell on that buildhost that I can run gcc & gdb in. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk