Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 89143 - One reason of run-time error while building of glibc with Intel Proton compiler.
One reason of run-time error while building of glibc with Intel Proton compi...
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: glibc (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jakub Jelinek
Brian Brock
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2003-04-18 07:26 EDT by Need Real Name
Modified: 2016-11-24 10:23 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-04-22 07:59:12 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Need Real Name 2003-04-18 07:26:19 EDT
Description of problem:
I try to build glibc with Intel compiler. I have run-time error "Segmentation 
fault" and while analyzed it I found the error in glibc text. The error is 

We have run-time error "Segmentation fault" while building of glibc package on 
the step "# Generate the rpcsvc headers with rpcgen". Appropriate 
rule "$(objpfx)rpcsvc/%.stmp: " is positioned in sunrpc/Makefile.  

This error happens when dynamic linker (ld.so) works and "case 0:" in 
function "fixup" is. I give appropriate text after the string 101 in dl-

101       case 0:
102         result = INTUSE(_dl_lookup_symbol) (strtab + sym->st_name, l, &sym,
103                                              l->l_scope, 
104                                              DL_LOOKUP_ADD_DEPENDENCY);
105       }
107     /* Currently result contains the base load address (or link map)
108         of the object that defines sym.  Now add in the symbol
109        offset.  */
110      value = (sym ? LOOKUP_VALUE_ADDRESS (result) + sym->st_value : 0);

If function   "_dl_lookup_symbol" ( in dl-lookup.c ) returns "0" it always 
returns sym = 0, too. You can see that &sym is third parameter of this 
function. It happens due to the string 250 in dl-lookup.c( *ref = NULL;).
As a result we have value = 0 (see string 110   in above text) and this value 
function fixup returns. But function fixup can not return zero at all.
The address returned is used for jumping.  I give glibc text where fixup called 
( from /sysdeps/i386/dl-mashine.h ):

220        call fixup              # Call resolver.\n\
221        popl %edx               # Pop the parameters\n\
222        popl %ecx\n\
223        popl %edx               # Get register content back.\n\
224        popl %ecx\n\
225        xchgl %eax, (%esp)      # Get %eax contents end store function 
226        ret $8                  # Jump to function address.\n\

Run-time error "Segmentation fault"  happens on last operator  "ret $8" from 
string 226.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:
While rpm build glibc with Intel compiler. 

Steps to Reproduce:
1. It is difficult. See description.
Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:
Comment 1 Ulrich Drepper 2003-04-22 04:55:31 EDT
Solve your problems yourself.  We are not going to help you using your compiler.
Comment 2 Need Real Name 2003-04-22 07:44:37 EDT
This bug is not critical for Intel compiler. It is a real bug in glibc text and 
knowledge about it is very useful for glibc quality. Report should be 
reassigned to the interested person.
Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2003-04-22 07:59:12 EDT
There is no proof above there is a bug in glibc. What you described is certainly
not where the bug happens. It looks (although you haven't bothered to mention
which symbol is being looked up) like a call to weak undefined symbol not defined anywhere,
which suggest a compiler bug.
As said above, we are certainly not going to debug bugs in your compiler.
If you find a real glibc bug, fine, we'll look at it. But you haven't shown anything
like that.
Comment 4 Denis Briltz 2003-04-23 03:58:14 EDT
You are right that undefined symbol seems to be a compiler bug.
But the behavior when symbols are carefully checked and then it ends with a 
jump to 0 seems to be a real glibc bug, isn't it?


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