I'm not convinced it is a bug in clang, Jeff - we know that Siegmar has been getting segfaults in the mca var code, though it isn't clear if those are alignment issues or not (looked like them, but can't say with certainty). May just need to ask him to run the current trunk and see if the problems persist now that I fixed the one in opal/dss.
On Sep 11, 2014, at 5:34 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > I re-ran the test, just to ensure I had the line numbers right (I have some > local edits in my SVN copy): > > ----- > mca_base_var.c:681:18: runtime error: member access within misaligned address > 0x2aaaab338409 for type 'mca_base_var_storage_t', which requires 8 byte > alignment > ----- > > This is referring to the bool conversion. According to opal_config.h, bool > has an alignment of 1. The ...8409 address is definitely 1-byte aligned. :-) > > And this one: > > ----- > mca_base_var.c:668:18: runtime error: member access within misaligned address > 0x2aaaabc90ccc for type 'mca_base_var_storage_t', which requires 8 byte > alignment > ----- > > is referring to the int conversion. According to opal_config, ints are > 4-byte aligned. The ...0ccc address is 4-byte aligned. > > Note that I also get similar warnings about OB1: > > ----- > pml_ob1_hdr.h:462:17: runtime error: member access within misaligned address > 0x2aaabb35f2cc for type 'mca_pml_ob1_hdr_t' (aka 'union mca_pml_ob1_hdr_t'), > which requires 8 byte alignment > ----- > > mca_pml_ob1_hdr_t is also a union. > > Is this a bug in the clang alignment sanitizer? > > > > > On Sep 10, 2014, at 4:41 PM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > >> It complains about 0x2aaaab1b1ed9 being misaligned which seems as a valid >> complaint. What is the dst value when this trigger? What is var->mbv_storage? >> >> George. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) >> <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: >> On Sep 10, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Regardless, what do we do about this? >> >> To answer my own question, I guess we can replace: >> >> dst->intval = int_value >> >> with >> >> int *bogus = (int*) dst; >> *bogus = int_value; >> >> and do a similar thing for the bool. >> >> Seems kludgey, and kinda defeats the point of having a union, though. >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquy...@cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/09/15799.php >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/09/15800.php > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/09/15808.php
