[petsc-dev] Did someone fucking break bfort?

[Satish Balay]

Did my suggested change not work for you?

Satish

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote:

> 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
>