Did my suggested change not work for you? Satish
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
