I've gone rather deep on this, but I think I need to timebox this now. Remaining questions: - Maybe the inlining pre-evaluates things wrong and combines resize/size in a bad way to pass the value 2 where it should be 1? - maybe the code<->line association is wrong and this is the first args.resize call that uses "+1" but that should just convert to a append (instead of erase) - I can't see it yet where/why the #2 comes from (comment #16) - not the reason why it goes in to that path at all (comment #15). - it seems as if the vector size is racy or inlined with a static value (since it depends on optimization flags in gcc) - I also haven't seen why this should be arm64 only, but it is
We can still use the mitigation shown in comment #2, would someone be willing to review and sponsor that if it is ok? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1869734 Title: openjade segfaults on arm (due to gcc optimization) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openjade/+bug/1869734/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
