Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Liam R. Howlett
> wrote:
>
>> 2.13.0 is very much broken for me on SPARC.
>> {maint//git} $ make -j120
>> [...]
>> {maint//git} $ ./git log
>> [1]1004506 bus error (core dumped) ./git log
>>
>> This is with b06d36431 (maint)
Linus Torvalds writes:
> Dereferencing an unaligned pointer may be "undefined" in some
> technical meaning, but it sure as hell isn't undefined in reality, and
> compilers that willfully do stupid things should not be catered to
> overly. Reality is a lot more important.
Thanks for succinctly pu
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 1:17 PM, demerphq wrote:
> Most hash function implementations have code like the following
> (extracted and reduced from hv_macro.h in perl.git [which only
> supports little-endian hash functions]):
Yes.
Please do *not* try to make things overly portable by adding random
m
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:17 PM, demerphq wrote:
> On 2 June 2017 at 21:32, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2017 at 10:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin
On 2 June 2017 at 22:14, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>> On 2 June 2017 at 21:32, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Martin Ågren
>>> wrote:
On 2 June 2017 at 10:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
On 2 June 2017 at 21:32, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>> On 2 June 2017 at 10:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Martin Ågren writes:
> I looked into this some more.
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On 2 June 2017 at 21:32, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2017 at 10:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ma
On 2 June 2017 at 21:32, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>> On 2 June 2017 at 10:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Martin Ågren writes:
> I looked into this some more.
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On 2 June 2017 at 10:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Martin Ågren writes:
>>>
I looked into this some more. It turns out it is possible to trigger
undefined behavior
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> * ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason [170602 04:53]:
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Martin Ågren writes:
>> >
>> >> I looked into this some more. It turns out it is possible to trigger
>> >> undefined behavior on "next
* ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason [170602 04:53]:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Martin Ågren writes:
> >
> >> I looked into this some more. It turns out it is possible to trigger
> >> undefined behavior on "next". Here's what I did:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> This "fixes" the probl
On 2 June 2017 at 10:51, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Martin Ågren writes:
>>
>>> I looked into this some more. It turns out it is possible to trigger
>>> undefined behavior on "next". Here's what I did:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> This "fixes" th
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin Ågren writes:
>
>> I looked into this some more. It turns out it is possible to trigger
>> undefined behavior on "next". Here's what I did:
>> ...
>>
>> This "fixes" the problem:
>> ...
>> diff --git a/sha1dc/sha1.c b/sha1dc/sha1.c
>>
Martin Ågren writes:
> I looked into this some more. It turns out it is possible to trigger
> undefined behavior on "next". Here's what I did:
> ...
>
> This "fixes" the problem:
> ...
> diff --git a/sha1dc/sha1.c b/sha1dc/sha1.c
> index 3dff80a..d6f4c44 100644
> --- a/sha1dc/sha1.c
> +++ b/sha1d
On 1 June 2017 at 13:53, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On 1 June 2017 at 12:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>>> On 1 June 2017 at 12:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Even if the architecture implements unaligned accesses in hardware, it
is s
On 1 June 2017 at 12:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>> On 1 June 2017 at 12:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Even if the architecture implements unaligned accesses in hardware, it
>>> is still undefined behaviour, and the compiler will (eve
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On 1 June 2017 at 12:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Jun 01 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Depending on the model of "ARM" (or "SPARC") emulated with QEMU, and
>>> depending on the OS that runs on such an "ARM" or "SPARC", we may
>>> not
On 1 June 2017 at 12:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 01 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Depending on the model of "ARM" (or "SPARC") emulated with QEMU, and
>> depending on the OS that runs on such an "ARM" or "SPARC", we may
>> not see this---if the emulated OS has the "software unaligned-ac
On Jun 01 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Depending on the model of "ARM" (or "SPARC") emulated with QEMU, and
> depending on the OS that runs on such an "ARM" or "SPARC", we may
> not see this---if the emulated OS has the "software unaligned-access
> emulation" our userland may not see a SIGBUS.
Lars Schneider writes:
>> On 01 Jun 2017, at 10:28, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>
>> The sh1dc implementation is making unaligned accesses, which will crash
>> on some architectures, others have to emulate them in software.
>
> Is SPARC an architecture that would run into this problem? I think
> the
Andreas Schwab writes:
> This is git 2.13.0.
Thanks. It is a known issue with a known fix cooking in 'next' to
be merged down to 'master' and 'maint' not in a too distant future.
An extra testing to ensure that the "fix" actually works before it
is merged down to a maintenance release is very m
On Jun 01 2017, "brian m. carlson" wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> The sh1dc implementation is making unaligned accesses, which will crash
>> on some architectures, others have to emulate them in software.
>>
>> Breakpoint 4, sha1_compression_states (i
> On 01 Jun 2017, at 10:28, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> The sh1dc implementation is making unaligned accesses, which will crash
> on some architectures, others have to emulate them in software.
Is SPARC an architecture that would run into this problem? I think
there was a thread a few days ago ab
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> The sh1dc implementation is making unaligned accesses, which will crash
> on some architectures, others have to emulate them in software.
>
> Breakpoint 4, sha1_compression_states (ihv=0x600e7010,
> m=, W=0x600e
This is git 2.13.0.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
Is this with or without a0103914 ("sha1dc: update from upstream",
2017-05-20)?
SHA1DCUpdate calls sha1_process with buf being unaligned.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
The sh1dc implementation is making unaligned accesses, which will crash
on some architectures, others have to emulate them in software.
Breakpoint 4, sha1_compression_states (ihv=0x600e7010,
m=, W=0x600e70a8, states=0x600e7328)
at sha1dc/sha1.c:398
398
28 matches
Mail list logo
