Bug 58657 - gcc-3.1-0.18 miscompilation on rpm build/files.c
gcc-3.1-0.18 miscompilation on rpm build/files.c
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: gcc (Show other bugs)
1.0
ia64 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jakub Jelinek
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2002-01-22 08:30 EST by Jeff Johnson
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:39 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-10-02 15:56:16 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
patch in build/files.c (1.21 KB, patch)
2002-01-22 08:32 EST, Jeff Johnson
no flags Details | Diff
temp file (479.32 KB, patch)
2002-01-22 08:46 EST, Jeff Johnson
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Jeff Johnson 2002-01-22 08:30:15 EST
gcc-3.1-0.18 is miscompiling rpm-4.0.4-0.15 build/files.c

Workaround was to add attached patch and compile build/files.c
with CFLAGS="-g -O0 -DIA64_SUCKS_ROCKS"
Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2002-01-22 08:32:52 EST
Created attachment 43174 [details]
patch in build/files.c
Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2002-01-22 08:46:32 EST
Created attachment 43175 [details]
temp file
Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2002-01-22 13:21:57 EST
Were you seeing the problem in all 3 places or just one?
If just in the stpcpy(foo, "./") case, then it is a different thing than
the other two...
Comment 4 Jeff Johnson 2002-01-22 14:01:30 EST
Ah, overriding CFLAGS="-g -O0 -DIA64_SUCKS_ROCKS" (note missing
-D_GNU_SOURCE) explains the warning.

However it does *NOT* explain why I don't get the warning when the
same command is repeated a bit later. WTFO?

And I get segfaults when trying to repeat results of last night.

FWIW, rpm-4.0.4-0.15 built this morning, is installed and running
on bullwinkle with the missing -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT
compilation patch as described.

Appears that there's some uncontrolled for condition related to
bullwinkle. I believe my so called patch just happens to work.
Temperature?

And yes, the problem is/was invariant to disabling each of the 3
stpcpy chunks.
Comment 5 Jeff Johnson 2002-01-22 15:05:39 EST
Hmmm, after trying again the warning message is repeatable.
Good, I'm not insane, just distracted.

We'll see whether rpm-4.0.4-0.16 builds repeatably on ia64.
Comment 6 Jeff Johnson 2002-01-22 17:00:14 EST
OK, here's what I see:

boris can build rpm-4.0.4-0.16 w hack, runs on bullwinkle OK.

bullwinkle can build -0.16 w hack, runs on bullwinkle OK.

bullwinkle can build -0.16 w/o hack, does NOT run on bullwinkle..

Off to build w/o hack on boris to eliminate build tree problems, otherwise
the problem is as likely to be the missing -D_GNU_SOURCE and -D_REENTRANT
as something else.
Comment 7 Jeff Johnson 2002-01-22 17:46:17 EST
Build on boris w/o hack does NOT run on boris.

That eliminates (well minimizes) build tree pollution.

I'm kinda stumped here. Ideas on how to proceed?
Comment 8 Jakub Jelinek 2002-02-08 05:40:32 EST
Can you tell me the exact way to reproduce the problem (ie. what should
I exactly run in the buildroot after I build rpm w/o hack)?
Comment 9 Jakub Jelinek 2004-10-02 15:56:16 EDT
No testcase and the bug is too old.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.