On 9/14/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/14/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/14/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/14/06, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/14/06, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yakov Lerner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/14/06, Haakon Riiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > After recompiling Vim with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, everything > > > > > > > > involving tags break, including the help system. Typing :h, > > > > > > > > or pressing ^] to jump to a tag, causes Vim to get caught in an > > > > > > > > infinite loop. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Can you find out where in the code this happens? > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect the 64 bit library functions work different from the "normal" > > > > > > functions. Perhaps fgets(), since that's what is being used to read the > > > > > > tags file. > > > > > > > > > > In situation where fgets() returns NULL, find_tags() enters > > > > > infinite loop as follows. > > > > > > > > Sorry, this doesn't show me where the loop actually is. Please compile > > > > without the optimizer, otherwise code reordering confuses the debugger. > > > > > > > > At least tell us if Vim hangs in tag_fgets() or in find_tags(). > > > > > > The loop is is inside find_tags(), and it procees around following line > > > numbers: > > > 1625 1626 1642 1647 1650 1651 1652 1653 1562 1564 1566 > > > 1576 1582 1588 1601 1603 1604 1616 1619 1621 1625 > > > and infinite loop repeats. Look at this: > > > gdb> print print search_info.curr_offset > > > $2 = 5258708303049 > > > > I cannot guess where this loop first gets beyond end of file > > (filesize=2506), but once it gets beyond, we are missing check that > > search_info.*offset''s are beyond end of file ? > > Maybe add such check somewhere ? I don't know where to add the check. > > > > Yakov > > It seems I found the culprint. It is line 1651, > search_info.match_offset = ftell(fp); > > (gdb) p ftell(fp) > $11 = 2506 > (gdb) n > 1652 search_info.curr_offset = > search_info.curr_offset_used; > (gdb) p search_info.curr_offset > $12 = 5258708302025 > (gdb)Ok, this must be gcc bug. It bites even without optimization. Rewriting lines 'search_info.curr_offset = ftell(fp)' fixes the problem if I rewrite them into this: long ltmp; ltmp = ftell(fp); search_info.curr_offset = ltmp; NB that ftell() returns long. Type of search_info.curr_offset is long long when -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64. Simpe asignment search_info.curr_offset = ftell(fp) puts trash into lhs. ftell(fp) by itself returns correct number. this is gcc 3.4.2 Fedora3
Surprisingly, changing ftell() to ftello() does not change anything. Casting ftell() to (off_t) doesn't change anything. Funnily, casting ftell to (long) makes the problem go away (as it ftell does not already return long, it does): 1628 search_info.curr_offset = (long)ftell(fp); 1644 search_info.curr_offset = (long)ftell(fp); 1651 search_info.match_offset = (long)ftell(fp);
