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 Dalc?n 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/20091224/0706d6f8/attachment.html>
