develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2004

Re: Smoke [5.9.2] 23670 FAIL(m) openbsd 3.6 (i386/1 cpu)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Ed Allen Smith
December 23, 2004 14:45
Re: Smoke [5.9.2] 23670 FAIL(m) openbsd 3.6 (i386/1 cpu)
Message ID:
In message <> (on 23 December 2004
22:19:57 +0000), (Nicholas Clark) wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 05:04:04PM -0500, Ed Allen Smith wrote:
>> Right. I notice, incidentally, that the bop.t failures seem to have
>> something to do with mallocwrap (23666)? Will try to take a look at that
>> one and see if I can figure out anything on mallocwrap on IRIX from
>> it... may be a bit though, I'll be out of town shortly.
>Well, 23666 was an attempt to stop the failures on platforms where mallocwrap
>doesn't (yet) work. IIRC this included IRIX. So I was hoping that with this
>Irix would all pass again.

It should; am running a check now. But I was actually more thinking of it as
an easy way to simulate a bug that should be wrappable - as in to try to
determine, for instance, whether non-n32 (-o32 or -64) IRIX, which doesn't
show false-positive mallocwrap tests, actually _does_ do _useful_ mallocwrap
testing or simply isn't affected by it (either would coredump even with
mallocwrap or wouldn't coredump even without mallocwrap), or whether IRIX is
vulnerable in -n32 mode to the sort of problem that caused mallocwrap to be
created in the first place. Admittedly, this test may be obvious to someone
with more understanding than myself of exactly what mallocwrap _does_ -
malloc is not an area of C that I am strong on (involves too much pointer
arithmetic, addressing, et al...).


Allen Smith		
There is only one sound argument for democracy, and that is the argument
that it is a crime for any man to hold himself out as better than other men,
and, above all, a most heinous offense for him to prove it. - H. L. Mencken

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About