Hi, > I really need a disassembly and to be able to probe the runtime > stack a bit, so that really means that I need to build the code. :)
The current example would be a bit too opulent, i guess: -rwxr-xr-x 1 thomas thomas 3753398 avril 28 17:49 xorriso/xorriso (wget http://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso-1.3.2.tar.gz untar, cd xorriso-1.3.2, ./configure, make, ls -l xorriso/xorriso, crash by: xorriso/xorriso -outdev stdio:/dev/null -map ./xorriso / ) I'll try to reproduce by a smaller program on Sebastien's system. > I think as a more meta-problem is this: the code's logic for "how > much" to copy is wrong. It copies too many bytes on many cases and > violates the C contract that you'll only copy like objects using "=". > [...] you're copying unlike objects of different sizes and > that's never safe. It's the job of a C union to provide a common hull around objects of different size. One may dispute whether using union is a good idea (like overloading in the OO paradigm). But unions are part of C since K&R and they are supposed to be safe. http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html#Size-of-Unions As for the cost: The threads are running big operations of libburn. Even a full MB of copying would not make much difference. Elsewise i agree with you. I would have written it differently, too. But i will try to keep the necessary changes as small as possible. So the union approach will most probably stay unless i get convinced that it is faulty C language. Have a nice day :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5941670806243473...@scdbackup.webframe.org
