Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-04 Thread Bruce Evans
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs I haven't had a chance to compile or test it, but it should be easy enough to fix if it doesn't (compile). It seems a bit fragile. As I understand it, it loads a clean FP

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-04 Thread John Hay
Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs It works! Already 5 hours without a single signal 6. Thanks! Let me test it myself and I'll commit it as a (yet another) work around until mini gets a chance to make new syscalls to handle

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-04 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
John Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], : Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Additional details: it cause not only cvsupd death, but rarely cvsup : signal 6 death too with this diagnostic: : : *** : ***

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-04 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Bruce Evans wrote: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs I haven't had a chance to compile or test it, but it should be easy enough to fix if it doesn't (compile). It seems a bit

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-04 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 16:37:21 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs It works! Already 5 hours without a single signal 6. A slightly different version with bde

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 08:11:10 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 20:51:40 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: Please back it out or do it properly! this IS the backout.. it's now how it was before, including in 4.x I mean - back out this backout - it damage 5.0

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: ... revision 1.539 ... Please back it out or do it properly! this IS the backout.. it's now how it was before,

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:48:58AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date: 2002/09/30 07:02:22; author: obrien; state: Exp;

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread John Polstra
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date: 2002/09/30 07:02:22; author: obrien;

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread John Hay
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date: 2002/09/30 07:02:22; author:

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 08:49:10 -0700, John Polstra wrote: Good sleuthing! Just divide desert by a half to catch a lion. I mean backward/forward date-based cvsup rollback narrowed to one commit in question. ***Value out of range ***file

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 08:34:09 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: I haven't seen any problems with cvsup since the return to the older way of doing this. What do you mean by 'older way'? With or without this commit? See Bruce's note in this thread explaining copying over ucontext, it seems he

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 23:00:53 +0400 Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I test it with exact the same cvsupd data set and system files, but with different kernels. Kernel without the commit in question not show any signs of signal 6 in 12 hours. Kernel with this commit show signal 6

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:48:58AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date: 2002/09/30 07:02:22; author: obrien; state: Exp;

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, David O'Brien wrote: On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:48:58AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date:

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 16:37:21 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs I'll try it a bit later, but now have a question about it: why you redefine _MC_FP* constants? They are for different fields in anycase. -- Andrey A.

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 16:37:21 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs I'll try it a bit later, but now have a question about it: why you redefine _MC_FP* constants? They

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 16:37:21 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs It works! Already 5 hours without a single signal 6. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 07:52:50 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 16:37:21 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs It works! Already 5 hours without a single signal 6. Details: I _have_

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread John Polstra
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs I haven't had a chance to compile or test it, but it should be easy enough to fix if it doesn't (compile). I'm still not exactly sure why

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 16:37:21 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs It works! Already 5 hours without a single signal 6. Thanks! Let me test it myself and I'll

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, John Polstra wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you try the patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/sys.diffs I haven't had a chance to compile or test it, but it should be easy enough to fix if it

Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-02 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date: 2002/09/30 07:02:22; author: obrien; state: Exp; lines: +10 -0 Save the FP state in the PCB as that is compatable with

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-02 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date: 2002/09/30 07:02:22; author: obrien; state: Exp; lines: +10 -0

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death(signal 6))

2002-10-02 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: The bug completely gone after I revert machdep.c to 1.538. This commit cause bug: revision 1.539 date: 2002/09/30 07:02:22; author: obrien; state: Exp; lines: +10 -0

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-02 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 20:50:52 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: Please back it out or do it properly! did you recompile the apps and the libraries? 1st try: I got signal 6 with old, but 5.0 binaries dynamically linked with m3 libraries. 2nd try: I recompile whole cvsup, getting very

Re: Reason: releng4 comp. hack, machdep.c 1.539 (was: cvsupd death (signal 6))

2002-10-02 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 20:51:40 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: Please back it out or do it properly! this IS the backout.. it's now how it was before, including in 4.x I mean - back out this backout - it damage 5.0 FP binaries. I don't care about 4.x -- Andrey A. Chernov