From owner-freebsd-bugs  Mon Sep  1 02:25:47 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA16241
          for bugs-outgoing; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 02:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oberon.tpgi.com.au (root@oberon.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.2])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA16236
          for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 02:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from b1.tpgi.com.au (mel-ppp-059.tpgi.com.au [203.12.163.59]) by oberon.tpgi.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA12151; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 19:25:26 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from cagney@localhost) by b1.tpgi.com.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) id TAA21046; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 19:23:24 +1000 (EST)
Received: from Messages.8.5.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.b1.cygnus.com.i386.bsd
          via MS.5.6.b1.cygnus.com.i386_bsd;
          Mon,  1 Sep 1997 19:23:24 +1000 (WET)
Message-ID: <Mo2caAgW0k008UVdwH@tpgi.com.au>
Date: Mon,  1 Sep 1997 19:23:24 +1000 (WET)
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@tpgi.com.au>
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Subject: Re: bin/4403: vasprintf (3) corrupts memory
CC: hoek@hwcn.org, freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org,
        Andrew Cagney <cagney@cygnus.com>
In-Reply-To: <19970829081543.SZ47698@uriah.heep.sax.de>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970828015215.13863B-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> <wo1Yzm460kM0RX3Otl@tpgi.com.au>
	<19970829081543.SZ47698@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Excerpts from mail: 29-Aug-97 Re: bin/4403: vasprintf (3)..
j@uriah.heep.sax.de (1046*)

> As Andrew Cagney wrote:

> > FYI,  I'm not interested in current, just `stable'.  Unfortunatly, it
> > sounds like stable isn't as stable as one would like :-(.

> > I'll think about adding a hack to libiberty, forcing it to use the FSF
> > version of vasprintf on any freebsd-2.[12].* machine.

> Before you start doing silly things, better read the commit logs.
> Peter has merged the fix simultaneously to -stable.  (Or is *this*
> what makes it too less `stable' for you, too many bugfixes merged? :-)

Silly? puzzled expression :-)  If a user builds a current GDB snapshot
on a pure FreeBSD 2.1.7 or 2.2.2 system, it will probably dump core. 
Consequently, gdb needs to provide a workaround to the vasprintf bug.

Any way, 2.1.[67] can't be too unstable if I've only turned up one bug
in ~6 months :-)

	enjoy,
		Andrew