Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:54 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 15:25 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:35 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 12:18 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > ... > > > I have now completely disabled the wrapper,

Re: Introducing the hardening-wrapper package (was: Exim4 problems)

On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 20:39 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 19:47 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Apparently there's something going very wrong for us, for some of the > > hardening flags, such that GDB gets confused, SEGFAULTs arise, and all > > what we've seen. Svante, s

Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 23:39 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > At least we get rid of a lot of warnings when compiling, and according > > to the output no registers are used without the change?? Did you change > > that code, and if so how? > > No code change at all, it's just another way to expres

Re: gnumach FTBFS

Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 20:34:08 +0200, a écrit : > > Well, actually in that case it'll be the same. But it's much more clear > > to announce the memory as being both read&written ("+m") than announcing > > it as read and also as written ("m" and "=m"). > > Can you tell if the change ha

Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 18:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 17:41:50 +0200, a écrit : > > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 16:54:24 +0200, a écrit : > > .. > > > > Is this OK? There is also a simila

Re: gnumach FTBFS

Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 17:41:50 +0200, a écrit : > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 16:54:24 +0200, a écrit : > .. > > > Is this OK? There is also a similar case in the glibc code. > > > > Where? > > See below: Ok, the s

Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 16:54:24 +0200, a écrit : .. > > Is this OK? There is also a similar case in the glibc code. > > Where? See below: Changing "1" and "2" to "m" made the warnings disappear. But you say that this is not t

Re: gnumach FTBFS

Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 16:54:24 +0200, a écrit : > A question: I can avoid the warnings below by doing the following asm > change. I saw it somewhere on the web that people recommended this type > of change to enable the inline code go into a register. Does it make > sense (I don't reme

Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 15:25 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:35 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 12:18 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > ... > > I have now completely disabled the wrapper, and the build problems > > remain. > > And building with -O0 does

Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:35 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 12:18 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: ... > I have now completely disabled the wrapper, and the build problems > remain. And building with -O0 does not work either. i486-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -nostdinc -ima

Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 12:18 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hallo! > Wait a moment... gcc-4.6.real. Is that still with the hardening-wrapper > package installed? -- OK... I should just continue reading your > email... :-) Yes, the wrapper is still installed. > > > With which CFLAGS does the

Re: Mach bug trigger: Re: Updated gdb patch

Svante Signell, le Wed 18 May 2011 13:15:43 +0200, a écrit : > (from gnumach/ipc/mach_port.c, same message every time, even when > exiting/entering gdb) > task 52482320 deallocating an invalid port 27260936, most probably a > bug. You mean with the same task address? Then that's good, it'll be a

Mach bug trigger: Re: Updated gdb patch

On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 17:34 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > But something else was improved: > > path/to/compiled/gdb /usr/sbin/exim4 > > (gdb) run --version > (gdb) Starting program: /usr/sbin/exim4 --version > > This warning disappear

Re: forwarded proposal to finance some hurd work

Hallo! On Tue, 17 May 2011 21:19:57 +0200, Tanguy LE CARROUR wrote: > I thought about "refreshing" the web site sometimes ago. No need to redo > everything... one can do a lot with just CSS Styling. Sure! If you'd like to work on that, see here for starters:

Re: forwarded proposal to finance some hurd work

Hallo! On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:07:31 +0200, Tanguy LE CARROUR wrote: > 2011/5/7 > > More importantly however -- as I stated before -- I have serious doubts > > about the usefulness of small monetary rewards. > > > According to the reaction we got (...none...) I'm also starting to be a > bit skep

Re: Introducing the hardening-wrapper package (was: Exim4 problems)

Hallo! On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:39:00 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > I saw that hardening-wrapper was installed but did not react on that. > Have not seen anything in debian-devel about this. Should have saved me > a lot of time. Don't feel bad about that. > On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 19:47 +0200,

Re: gnumach FTBFS

Hallo! On Wed, 18 May 2011 11:37:45 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 10:31 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Samuel Thibault, le Wed 18 May 2011 10:28:50 +0200, a écrit : > > > Svante Signell, le Sun 15 May 2011 11:11:41 +0200, a écrit : > > > > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:26 +0

Re: gnumach FTBFS

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 10:31 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Samuel Thibault, le Wed 18 May 2011 10:28:50 +0200, a écrit : > > Svante Signell, le Sun 15 May 2011 11:11:41 +0200, a écrit : > > > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:26 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > I run Hurd under qemu on a Debian GNU/

Re: gnumach FTBFS: Was Re: Race condition in Mach/Hurd?

Samuel Thibault, le Wed 18 May 2011 10:28:50 +0200, a écrit : > Svante Signell, le Sun 15 May 2011 11:11:41 +0200, a écrit : > > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:26 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > I run Hurd under qemu on a Debian GNU/Linux testing box. qemu-kvm > > > > version 0.14.0+dfsg-1~tls > >

Re: gnumach FTBFS: Was Re: Race condition in Mach/Hurd?

Svante Signell, le Sun 15 May 2011 11:11:41 +0200, a écrit : > On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 00:26 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > I run Hurd under qemu on a Debian GNU/Linux testing box. qemu-kvm > > > version 0.14.0+dfsg-1~tls > > > > Which precise version of gcc are you using? > > gcc --version >