From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8631 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-uy74@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl bug or not, real or not? (Was: [musl] Update: [musl] pthread_getattr_np() vs explicit runtime) loader Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:27:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20151007072753.GM28311@example.net> References: <20150920063909.GO12087@example.net> <20150920163405.GK17773@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150920172237.GR12087@example.net> <20150920182728.GM17773@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150920193033.GS12087@example.net> <20150920194132.GO17773@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150930154337.GC13149@example.net> <20150930203548.GF13149@example.net> <20151006113451.GI28311@example.net> <20151006170755.GQ8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444202902 26971 80.91.229.3 (7 Oct 2015 07:28:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 07:28:22 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8643-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Oct 07 09:28:22 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zjj9B-0008Dy-LZ for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:28:21 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 13679 invoked by uid 550); 7 Oct 2015 07:28:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 13658 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2015 07:28:19 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fripost.org; h= in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:content-type :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject:from:from :date:date; s=20140703; t=1444202888; x=1446017289; bh=PDXEX7G4B wLGG6c8E6ZgsLqwkjLPYnn20N0lEUfLhYI=; b=YZoNPQq+pnOG29JwweVH8AASI lwi2I+GyxTzrFAzjXwlZBjkb5N8gK5L4auL44kTT9vP8O20dME4nniWWzPbNco5V u2WdbLd1umgJ+ULFCRg2/g9kNY5MaRruX1fFSzO2wlhmb+erIrbZmtZOxG/U8e6N ouTKeGfy6a+JFVMkDc= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151006170755.GQ8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8631 Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:07:55PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > It's not that I'm uninterested, just that there does not yet seem to > be any reason to believe it's a bug in musl or any easy test-case to > reproduce the problem, so I wouldn't even know where to get started... That's why I looked for somebody to do a simple test (even though with a "complex" application), to see how reproducible the problem is. The crash (now I assume that it resides in gcc) depends apparently on a combination of many variables. > I think you really need to find a way to use what debugging tools you > have to figure out what's going on and where the actual source of the > crash is. Pretty remarkably, neither my usual gdb nor Debian's current gdb were able to make sence of the crashes. Probably the thread states became messed up too badly. Fortunately I do not think any longer that musl is the culprit, nor do I actually need gcj, otherwise have a workaround. Will not pursue this issue further. Thanks for your feedback, sorry for the noise. Rune