From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 10 20:02:32 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233)
	id E9998106566B; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:02:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:02:32 +0000
From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>
To: Navdeep Parhar <nparhar@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110810200232.GA38421@freebsd.org>
References: <86obzxw2ys.fsf@gmail.com>
	<CAPFoGT_EVNL5On9UYWwd+vx5z4=8YYg+Jjto6q2A9t89vrNqfg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPFoGT_EVNL5On9UYWwd+vx5z4=8YYg+Jjto6q2A9t89vrNqfg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Test Rat <ttsestt@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: awk(1) segfaults when building kernel modules
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:02:33 -0000

On Wed Aug 10 11, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Test Rat <ttsestt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > `make -s buildkernel' seems to contain lots of segfaults after recent
> > update of one-true-awk in r224731. It chokes on sys/conf/kmod_syms.awk.

just out of curiosity: what's the point of doing a vendor import during a
beta phase? isn't this exactly the kind of stuff you DON'T want to do, because
it can only turn out badly?

imho r224731 should completely be reverted. aren't those exactly the kind of
commits re@ shouldn't approve?

cheers.
alex

> ...
> >
> > Anyone else?
> 
> I see this too.