From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 02:36:36 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FED01065676 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:36:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13AD8FC17 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:36:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1818748rvf.43 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:36:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VHCdz3V6kWPDo0YQoxVeZPEytsNcVz3E9MtXt9fcqy8=; b=q9xyfegzPvs7eV84kCFiZ49PbKwLbST5fMtpmZV8s6taV6njYp1rb9Fdsj6oD22ryU 2NtZkjAiE26Nq6PqO8W7INB3wQDMLa9LWZLVjsr82UBNvFZbUnJwGXx7orLTGXWX8TQv hO8+dAEp8EDeQZA/yh8Fy233RPtqp1pOVh0lc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=CJPINDrfqPhQNygE0kBynpgEf87eVU+VZzrt7lZFI60ldx/ksUwCduIlGpKrkreZxj ioLG5QAlyZmvW7pEqwEdWyjuQ2p0JmjvNbbaYu80JHIerOUyrV9B0YyIYEXuSd/KYTSp 1Ye8MuktaD8301ks66tnD7FDgJQ0B0Vezx//8= Received: by 10.141.43.5 with SMTP id v5mr1596978rvj.281.1227494195627; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.158.13 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:36:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0811231836o77260926nd670ae0b63dd6aea@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:36:35 -0800 From: "Garrett Cooper" To: "FreeBSD Current" In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0811231832o74b4c9b0mc61baa22ea5c6001@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7d6fde3d0811231508g351019ffp724e9cc7e1e76c54@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0811231832o74b4c9b0mc61baa22ea5c6001@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Compiled results don't match for CURRENT and 7.0-RELEASE on amd64 / gdb weirdness with CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:36:36 -0000 On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> I'm running into a weird bug where the following compiled >> results don't match (and this could potentially be a regression). >> >> System 1: FreeBSD 8-CURRENT, synced up as of 3 days ago. Machine >> uses ULE and runs off a dual-core Intel proc. >> System 2: FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE, no patches, SMP enabled. Machine >> is a single-proc VMware Fusion image. >> >> I've made a few changes to hexdump in trying to triage the bugs >> under my name, and I noticed a difference in behavior between >> 8-CURRENT and 7.0-RELEASE, in particular the fact that 8-CURRENT >> doesn't appear to assert a != NULL statement, like on the 7.0-RELEASE >> machine, but instead chokes on an earlier statement. The patch can be >> found at: . OSX does the same thing as >> the 7.0-RELEASE machine as well, which is interesting, but there are a >> lot of points of variability with that machine, compared to the >> CURRENT box and the 7.0-RELEASE VM (compiler version, binutils >> versions, libc version, etc), and I don't want to go compare a vanilla >> Mac with FreeBSD. >> I'm syncing up the 7.0-RELEASE's sources to 7-RELEASE and we'll >> see if that fixes anything, but I'd be really curious if anyone else >> notes this behavior with different synced versions of CURRENT. > > The behavior's still the same between 7.0-RELEASE and 7.1-PRERELEASE, > so there appears to be an issue with 8-CURRENT. Suggestions for > tracking down this issue? > -Garrett Oh yes, and I forgot to mention that I just tried the VMware image with 2 virtual CPU's and it yields the same results as with 1 virtual CPU. -Garrett