Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:27:28 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: pthread_getattr_np() vs explicit runtime loader On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 07:22:37PM +0200, u-wsnj@...ey.se wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:34:05PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 08:39:09AM +0200, u-wsnj@...ey.se wrote: > > > Would you comment on whether this guess is correct and hopefully make > > > pthread_getattr_np() work even with the explicit loader? > > > > I reviewed the code and there are no assumptions about how the program > > is loaded made there. And the original test program I used to test > > pthread_getattr_np runs fine both normally and with an explicit loader > > command. So I think the actual problem must be elsewhere, likely in > > whatever the application is doing right after pthread_getattr_np. > > Thanks for checking, sorry that the hypothesis seems to be wrong. > > May I run a test with that program of yours? Test program attached. It's just a very basic functionality check. > > What triggered the crash to start happening? Upgrading musl? Upgrading > > It is the behaviour of gcc 5. This was the case when I built 5.1.0 but > 5.2.0 was supposed to be more compatible with musl, so I did not research > 5.1.0. Now gcc 5.2.0 behaves identically in this respect. And both musl and the crashing app were compiled with gcc 5? If so the problem could be on either side. > > gcc? Have you used gdb to get a backtrace and see where the program > > actually crashes? > > Not yet, going to. Rebuilding gcc with '-g', this takes some time. Unless gcc is the program crashing I don't see why you need to rebuild gcc with -g... Rich View attachment "getstack.c" of type "text/plain" (600 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.