From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id CF9783854830; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:13:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CF9783854830
From: "jakub at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: dwz@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup ==
 NULL' failed.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:13:22 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: dwz
X-Bugzilla-Component: default
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: nobody at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-27213-11298-rUxdx8QdhS@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-27213-11298@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-27213-11298@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: dwz@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dwz mailing list <dwz.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/dwz>,
 <mailto:dwz-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/dwz/>
List-Help: <mailto:dwz-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/dwz>,
 <mailto:dwz-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:13:22 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27213

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #1)
> It doesn't help with this case. But reviewing the code I found that there
> was at least one place where we didn't hash the DW_FORM_implicit_const va=
lue
> in checksum_die meaning that two DIEs which only differed in an attribute
> (which we didn't already handle specially) using a DW_FORM_implicit_const
> with a different value (maybe a DW_AT_byte_size) could possibly hash to t=
he
> same value.
>=20
> diff --git a/dwz.c b/dwz.c
> index 308bcba..e556dfb 100644
> --- a/dwz.c
> +++ b/dwz.c
> @@ -3580,7 +3580,11 @@ checksum_die (DSO *dso, dw_cu_ref cu, dw_die_ref
> top_die, dw_die_ref die)
>           ptr +=3D ptr_size;
>           break;
>         case DW_FORM_flag_present:
> +         break;
>         case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
> +         if (! handled)
> +           die->u.p1.die_hash
> +             =3D iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash=
);
>           break;
>         case DW_FORM_flag:
>         case DW_FORM_data1:

As for this patch, I agree that something should be done about it,
but wonder if it shouldn't be
          if (!handled && die->die_ck_state !=3D CK_BAD)
            {
              handled =3D true;
              die->u.p1.die_hash
                =3D iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash=
);
            }

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=