Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
> On 05/14/2022 8:42 PM Hal Murray via devel wrote: > > > I'm cc-ing devel so this doesn't get lost on gitlab. Let's move the > discussion real email.. > > > > include/ntp_fp.h:58 defines l_fp as a uint64_4, I can find no current > > contrary definitions. > > We need to make a cleanup pass in this area. > > On the wire, it's unsigned. As soon as the code gets 2 of them, it does a > subtract so we need a signed version. We need to check for underflow on the > initial subtract. > > There is also u_fp, a 32 bit version. The comment says there is a s_fp, but > I > can't find it. There used to be 45 back around git-conversion, they have gone extinct since. > --- > > I think we should comment out this test until we get the release out. > Please include references to both issues and this message/thread. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
> On 05/14/2022 8:53 PM Gary E. Miller via devel wrote: > > > Yo Hal! > > On Sat, 14 May 2022 17:42:59 -0700 > Hal Murray via devel wrote: > > > I'm cc-ing devel so this doesn't get lost on gitlab. Let's move the > > discussion real email.. > > > > > > > include/ntp_fp.h:58 defines l_fp as a uint64_4, I can find no > > > current contrary definitions. > > > > We need to make a cleanup pass in this area. > > > > On the wire, it's unsigned. As soon as the code gets 2 of them, it > > does a subtract so we need a signed version. We need to check for > > underflow on the initial subtract. > > > > There is also u_fp, a 32 bit version. The comment says there is a > > s_fp, but I can't find it. > > > > --- > > > > I think we should comment out this test until we get the release out. > > Please include references to both issues and this message/thread. > > I'm OK with commenting it out, just the two lines, until we figure out > what clang is doing. But I'd rather figure it out... I figured it out a while back and apparently failed to post my work to bug 714. It has to do with whether l_fp_abs is inlined and/or optimized IIRC. I had a (partial) disasembly, but I threw it away. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
> On 05/14/2022 9:42 PM Hal Murray via devel wrote: > > > > Not yet in the delvel emailarchives: What distro is broken by this? > > I've only seen it on FreeBSD. It's in the development branch and will be in > 13.1 which will be released in a few days. > > It's in clang. Unless FreeBSD has broken their copy, it will appear in other > distros as things get updated. The original reporter was a developer for FreeBSD 14. It's optional on Debian (bookworm & sid). Ubuntu (Impish, Jammy, and Kinetic), Gentoo (x86, amd64, arm, arm64, and ppc64), Alpine Edge, etc. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
> Not yet in the delvel emailarchives: What distro is broken by this? I've only seen it on FreeBSD. It's in the development branch and will be in 13.1 which will be released in a few days. It's in clang. Unless FreeBSD has broken their copy, it will appear in other distros as things get updated. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
Gary said: > I'm OK with commenting it out, just the two lines, until we figure out what > clang is doing. But I'd rather figure it out... I agree that we should figure it out, but we should get the release out first. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
Yo Hal! On Sat, 14 May 2022 17:42:59 -0700 Hal Murray via devel wrote: > I'm cc-ing devel so this doesn't get lost on gitlab. Let's move the > discussion real email.. Not yet in the delvel emailarchives: What distro is broken by this? RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588 Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas? "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin pgp3tEzU6RnSo.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
Yo Hal! On Sat, 14 May 2022 17:42:59 -0700 Hal Murray via devel wrote: > I'm cc-ing devel so this doesn't get lost on gitlab. Let's move the > discussion real email.. > > > > include/ntp_fp.h:58 defines l_fp as a uint64_4, I can find no > > current contrary definitions. > > We need to make a cleanup pass in this area. > > On the wire, it's unsigned. As soon as the code gets 2 of them, it > does a subtract so we need a signed version. We need to check for > underflow on the initial subtract. > > There is also u_fp, a 32 bit version. The comment says there is a > s_fp, but I can't find it. > > --- > > I think we should comment out this test until we get the release out. > Please include references to both issues and this message/thread. I'm OK with commenting it out, just the two lines, until we figure out what clang is doing. But I'd rather figure it out... RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588 Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas? "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin pgp0fL5IJ_Vty.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ntpsec | solve #714, #737 by removing ill-conceived test. (!1270)
I'm cc-ing devel so this doesn't get lost on gitlab. Let's move the discussion real email.. > include/ntp_fp.h:58 defines l_fp as a uint64_4, I can find no current > contrary definitions. We need to make a cleanup pass in this area. On the wire, it's unsigned. As soon as the code gets 2 of them, it does a subtract so we need a signed version. We need to check for underflow on the initial subtract. There is also u_fp, a 32 bit version. The comment says there is a s_fp, but I can't find it. --- I think we should comment out this test until we get the release out. Please include references to both issues and this message/thread. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
