[petsc-dev] Did someone fucking break bfort?

[Matthew Knepley]

On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Did my suggested change not work for you?
>

No. It did not even fix the stack smash. I fixed that, but then it SEGV
somewhere else.

  Matt


> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
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/20091225/43ac840d/attachment.html>