Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 14:32:59 -0700 From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "jenkins-admin@freebsd.org" <jenkins-admin@freebsd.org>, freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Jenkins build is still unstable: FreeBSD_HEAD-tests2 #867 Message-ID: <CAG=rPVchdm_VaTshq%2BRN%2BkHX0YC0_Tsx22oJVNNnoOamdm00mQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <494AEF4B-0AF8-449A-9B41-9AC4F4552AF0@FreeBSD.org> References: <1669399171.13.1427029129760.JavaMail.jenkins@jenkins-9.freebsd.org> <799490341.14.1427048792932.JavaMail.jenkins@jenkins-9.freebsd.org> <CAG=rPVeyamLPnC5i05_=Ub0D%2BV256U_8t8R5tfDitC=NkjBOFQ@mail.gmail.com> <BE5A3694-E1D1-4A47-8707-D6214E997363@FreeBSD.org> <494AEF4B-0AF8-449A-9B41-9AC4F4552AF0@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> Ah right, that was on i386, on amd64 it does result in -2^63. It is
> indeed caused by reliance on signed integer wrapping.
>
> This diff should fix it, without rewriting the utility:
>
> Index: bin/expr/Makefile
> ===================================================================
> --- bin/expr/Makefile (revision 280156)
> +++ bin/expr/Makefile (working copy)
> @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@ PROG= expr
> SRCS= expr.y
> YFLAGS=
>
> +# expr relies on signed integer wrapping
> +CFLAGS+= -fwrapv
> +
> NO_WMISSING_VARIABLE_DECLARATIONS=
>
> .if ${MK_TESTS} != "no"
>
Well, another alternative is to patch expr.y:
Index: expr.y
===================================================================
--- expr.y (revision 280353)
+++ expr.y (working copy)
@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@
}
void
-assert_plus(intmax_t a, intmax_t b, intmax_t r)
+assert_plus(intmax_t a, intmax_t b, volatile intmax_t r)
{
/*
* sum of two positive numbers must be positive,
@@ -420,7 +420,7 @@
}
void
-assert_minus(intmax_t a, intmax_t b, intmax_t r)
+assert_minus(intmax_t a, intmax_t b, volatile intmax_t r)
{
/* special case subtraction of INTMAX_MIN */
if (b == INTMAX_MIN && a < 0)
There were already some patches previously done to this
file to add "volatile", so maybe this would be OK to do.
What do you think?
--
Craig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG=rPVchdm_VaTshq%2BRN%2BkHX0YC0_Tsx22oJVNNnoOamdm00mQ>