Am Dienstag, 8. November 2005 16:54 schrieb Riccardo Tortorici: > On Nov 8, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 8. November 2005 16:44 schrieb Riccardo Tortorici: > >> 192.169.0.30 #by the way, is this target address > >> correct? > > > > Nope ;) > > s/169/168/ > > Anyway it is not related to the segfault issue. :-) > You should compare the two gdb outputs (both when it works and when > it doesn't), you should find the error in there.
gdb shows the following backtrace: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x700cf434 in bn_sub_words () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 (gdb) backtrace #0 0x700cf434 in bn_sub_words () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #1 0x700c8c20 in bn_sub_part_words () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #2 0x700c979c in bn_mul_recursive () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #3 0x700c964c in bn_mul_recursive () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #4 0x700ca50c in BN_mul () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #5 0x700d0a30 in BN_mod_mul_montgomery () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #6 0x700c6cf8 in BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #7 0x700ea4c4 in DH_OpenSSL () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #8 0x700ea28c in DH_generate_key () from /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 #9 0x00039b4c in error () #10 0x00037078 in error () #11 0x00034314 in error () #12 0x00033ab4 in error () #13 0x0001ee6c in ?? () #14 0x0001ee6c in ?? () Previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?) And indeed, removing /usr/lib/v9/libcrypto.so.0.9.8 fixes it immediately (the non-optimzed version is then used). I guess that the v9 optimization is buggy. However, before reporting this as bug, can someone confirm this? Me running an U60 with 2xUltraSparcII-360 HS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
