On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 00:21:15 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-02-19 05:56:27 [+0000], Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > The sparc build has now failed three times, across two different builds. > > And why did mips pass? Isn't mips the difficult one? > Not sure what you mean here.
> The patch attached is a simplified version of what I had on smetana > during testing. I would give it another try to make sure it works before > the final upload. > Speaking of which: does this count as a wheezy-pu bug for > clamav/0.99+dfsg-0+deb7u2? > Do you want to see this change in unstable before it hits wheezy? > > I have a tiny testcase which fails on my armel box but succeeds on the > armel porterbox. I guess the HW on the porterbox is new enough to work > with this (mine is ARMv5 and the porterbox is ARMv7 which is enough for > armhf). My testcase does not fail on the mips/mipsel porter boxes. > > diff --git a/libclamav/yara_exec.c b/libclamav/yara_exec.c > index dbd7ae8..eb06fbb 100644 > --- a/libclamav/yara_exec.c > +++ b/libclamav/yara_exec.c [...] > @@ -184,7 +194,7 @@ int yr_execute_code( > #endif > > case OP_PUSH: > - r1 = *(uint64_t*)(ip + 1); > + r1 = get_unaligned_64(ip + 1); > ip += sizeof(uint64_t); > push(r1); > break; Wouldn't "memcpy(&r1, ip + 1, sizeof(uint64_t))" be simpler? Either way, yes, it'd be good to have it fixed in sid first. Thanks, Julien
