From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25446 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2009 13:24:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 25426 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Aug 2009 13:24:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_93,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.154) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:24:10 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 13so1076462fge.0 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.31.17 with SMTP id e17mr3110fge.47.1249565047712; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com ([86.57.137.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20sm10560089fga.15.2009.08.06.06.23.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:24:00 -0000 From: Sergei Gavrikov To: cetoni GmbH - Uwe Kindler Cc: ecos-patches@sourceware.org, John Dallaway Subject: Re: eCos uSTL 1.3 port for review Message-ID: <20090806132511.GA18483@sg-ubuntu.local> References: <4A7A94D0.2010201@cetoni.de> <20090806122020.GA12099@sg-ubuntu.local> <4A7ACCCB.6070602@cetoni.de> <20090806124416.GA13434@sg-ubuntu.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090806124416.GA13434@sg-ubuntu.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-patches-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-patches-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 03:44:16PM +0300, Sergei Gavrikov wrote: > Uwe Kindler wrote: > > It would be really great, If you could investigate a little bit more, > > what causes the SIGSEG for synthetic target. Would you be so kind to run > > the new snprintf_c99.c test on synthetic target when C99 compliance > > activated to check if my vfnprintf() patch is working properly? > > Uwe, > > snprintf_c99 test passed successfully on synth. It seems that I should > grep all #if linux in ustl and look on that. I will try to rebuild ustl > with assertions and will try to re-run the tests. I'll let you know what > I will get then. Hm, Uwe, SIGSEG occured on a call of a destructor in vsnprintf.cxx (it's not your source). The uSTL test run on synthetic target with this dirty tweak. Do you have any thoughts? diff -u -5 -r1.6 vsnprintf.cxx --- src/common/vsnprintf.cxx 29 Jan 2009 17:49:53 -0000 1.6 +++ src/common/vsnprintf.cxx 6 Aug 2009 13:13:35 -0000 @@ -69,11 +69,11 @@ class Cyg_VsnprintfStream: public Cyg_OutputStream { public: Cyg_VsnprintfStream(char* s): s_(s) {} - virtual ~Cyg_VsnprintfStream() { *s_ = '\0'; } + virtual ~Cyg_VsnprintfStream() { /**s_ = '\0';*/ } virtual Cyg_ErrNo write( const cyg_uint8 *buffer, cyg_ucount32 buffer_length, cyg_ucount32 *bytes_written ); virtual Cyg_ErrNo get_error( void ) { return ENOERR; } Sergei