hi, On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 08:44:57AM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > I understand your point, and I'm fine with the bug being reopened. But > personally, I do not believe anymore this is a software bug, but simply a > compiler bug.
I think i've already shown pretty clearly that there are signed overflow
bugs in the code. I don't think this is up for debate. The build success
by passing some syntatic sugar to the compiler lowers the severity of the
bug (it's no longer RC, at least until it's shown that it is problematic
in real life), but it doesn't make the overflows disappear. did you try
re-running the build with -ftrapv in the cmdline? i'm guessing not... or
have you also applied the above mentioned patches in the meantime?
> Note that I say this while I admit I don't have full grasp of the
> signed overflow situation here. However:
> - gcc 4.3 was fine on armel
> - gcc 4.4 is fine on armel given no optimizations
i would hazard a guess that the problems are still there but that you
don't see them because the tests are passing and thus the package builds.
istr that running with -O0 -ftrapv still produces an abort(), which would
definitively confirm that the overflow bugs are still there.
honestly, without digging deeper this sounds to me more like "i inserted a
printf() and it stopped crashing, so we have to keep the printf() in there".
i really don't have a great deal of time for this issue right now (i haven't
tried contacting upstream beyond the first attempt when they were on vacation).
i will see if i can get access to another sheevaplug in the meantime to
re-run a build of the new "fixed" version.
sean
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
