At Fri, 18 May 2007 20:36:40 +0200,
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
>
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 21:19, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > I could reproduce this on one of my machines and ran it through
> > valgrind. I've just committed a fix to the grub2 CVS repository (as
> > well as another memory bug valgrind
On Thursday 17 May 2007 21:19, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> I could reproduce this on one of my machines and ran it through
> valgrind. I've just committed a fix to the grub2 CVS repository (as
> well as another memory bug valgrind spotted). A copy of the patch is
> below.
Thank you for your fix. Just
At Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:54 +0200,
Marco Gerards wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> > We got this bug report from Debian BTS. It seems to be related to LVM.
> >
> > The argc address in last line looks very suspicious; stack corruption?
>
> Can you try valgrind? The older valgrinds didn't work with GRUB 2
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Robert,
> We got this bug report from Debian BTS. It seems to be related to LVM.
>
> The argc address in last line looks very suspicious; stack corruption?
Can you try valgrind? The older valgrinds didn't work with GRUB 2,
but the newer ones do.
--
At Wed, 16 May 2007 22:38:25 +0200,
Florian Kriener wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 16 May 2007 22:29:17 Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > At Wed, 16 May 2007 22:01:01 +0200,
> >
> > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > We got this bug report from Debian BTS. It seems to be related to LVM.
> > >
> > > The argc address in
At Wed, 16 May 2007 22:01:01 +0200,
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> We got this bug report from Debian BTS. It seems to be related to LVM.
>
> The argc address in last line looks very suspicious; stack corruption?
It's possible, but it can also be a compiler optimalisation that
confuses gdb.
> > Pro
