Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

* Geert Uytterhoeven [160328 10:33]: > > I really don't want to add another patch except for critical issues > > (and that are likely to be applied to 2.3) at this point - so ... No. > > "tail call overwriting the (non-existing) argument" sounds like a security > issue that

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

Geert Uytterhoeven writes: > "tail call overwriting the (non-existing) argument" sounds like a security > issue that may be exploitable, even on non-m68k. It's only a problem if the argument is passed on the stack. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

On 03/28/2016 01:18 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >> The PTS says "LowNMU" for ruby2.3 which clearly means "Do an NMU without >> asking if you want to fix something" [1]. If that's not what you want, >> don't use that tag. > > You're mistaken. The "tag" is per-maintainer, and you need to look

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [160327 23:00]: >> Here's an updated patch which contains the actual changes that upstream >> committed to the git repository to close the upstream bug

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

On 03/28/2016 01:08 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > We're waiting for a whole list of more important issues to be > backported to the 2.3 branch (there haven't been any backports or > point releases so far). That's ok. > I really don't want to add another patch except for critical issues >

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [160328 01:16]: > >> I'd be happy to perform > >> an NMU as well to fix the issue. I assume that should be okay since > >> ruby2,3 is LowNMU? > > > > You're misreading what the PTS says and what the actual case is. > > The PTS says

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [160327 23:00]: > Here's an updated patch which contains the actual changes that upstream > committed to the git repository to close the upstream bug 12118 [1]. > > Would be possible to cherry-pick this fix from upstream until the >

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

Hi! Here's an updated patch which contains the actual changes that upstream committed to the git repository to close the upstream bug 12118 [1]. Would be possible to cherry-pick this fix from upstream until the changes have been backported to ruby2.3? I'd be happy to perform an NMU as well to

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

Control: tags -1 +patch Control: forwarded -1 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12118 Hi! Andreas Schwab just provided an updated patch which actually fixes the problem, I was now able to build ruby2.3 successfully on m68k. Attaching the patch. Upstream has also implemented some changes to

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

On 02/27/2016 09:52 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > I rememeber we had a similar issue on ruby2.2, so it might be possbible that > the patch suggested by Andreas Schwab back then [2] might help. Ok, this patch doesn't help for ruby2.3. The problem still persists. So, apparently, this is a

Bug#816077: ruby2.3: FTBFS on m68k - Segmentation fault at 0x5f583332

Source: ruby2.3 Version: 2.3.0-2 Severity: normal User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: m68k Hi! ruby2.3 currently fails to build from source with a segmentation fault late in the build process while running 'make install' [1]: ./miniruby -I./lib -I. -I.ext/common ./tool/runruby.rb