[petsc-dev] Did someone fucking break bfort?

[Matthew Knepley]

I spent a bunch of time on this today. This shit is hopelessly broken. It
sucks completely.
I cannot get it to run, nor see why it is causing stack overruns and SEGVs.
If anyone does
not think it is hopeless, speak up now. This is a complete fucking
embarrassment.

   Matt

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:

> This does not make any sense to me because it would be a heap violation,
> not a stack smash.
>
>   Matt
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> [I don't know the correct fix for this - but ] The following change is
>> getting rid of valgrind messages for me. Maybe you can use this, build
>> sowing separately - and continue..
>>
>> Satish
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> diff -r dbe25084c0e4 src/bfort/bfort.c
>> --- a/src/bfort/bfort.c Mon Dec 15 22:20:58 2008 -0600
>> +++ b/src/bfort/bfort.c Mon Dec 21 16:29:09 2009 -0600
>> @@ -2157,7 +2157,7 @@
>>
>>     /* Current token is name */
>>     arg->has_star = (nstar > 0);
>> -    arg->name     = (char *)MALLOC( strlen(p) + 1 );
>> +    arg->name     = (char *)MALLOC( strlen(p) + 10 );
>>     strcpy( arg->name, p );
>>
>>     /* We can't output the name just yet, because if it is
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>>
>> > The problem appears to be in OutputRoutine() in bfort.c, but that code
>> is
>> > impossible
>> > to debug. I can't see where something is getting overwritten, and it
>> looks
>> > like the check
>> > only happens when the routine returns. bfort is such crap.
>> >
>> >   Matt
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Lisandro Dalcín wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Matthew Knepley <
>> knepley at gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > It says there is a stack smash and no other info. This is
>> completely
>> > >> fucking
>> > >> > > my development right now.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Any chance bfort was built with -fstack-protector flag? This
>> failure
>> > >> > could could be signaling an actual old bug in bfort... I would
>> > >> > re-build bfort with debug and re-run under valgrind...
>> > >>
>> > >> That must be it.
>> > >>
>> > >> I just ran my build [which is without -fstack-protector] - and
>> > >> valgrind does flag a bunch of things with bfort.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > 1) That flag is nowhere in my build.
>> > >
>> > > 2) Something changed
>> > >
>> > >   Matt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> I normally install sowing separately and have it in my PATH - so that
>> > >> it doesn't have to be rebuilt each time I build petsc.
>> > >>
>> > >> I guess we should sync up [our patches] with latest sowing and make
>> > >> sure its valgrind clean aswell.
>> > >>
>> > >> Satish
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
>> > > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which
>> their
>> > > experiments lead.
>> > > -- Norbert Wiener
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
> experiments lead.
> -- Norbert Wiener
>



-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20091224/0706d6f8/attachment.html>