Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis

To: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
Cc: debian-68k@lists.debian.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis
From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 16:04:23 +1000 (AEST)
Message-id: <[🔎] be49e4a9-298b-a748-399a-9a075ceca72a@linux-m68k.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 54597ab3-2776-2a55-9952-3bfbbc329829@linux-m68k.org>
References: <4a9c1d0d-07aa-792e-921f-237d5a30fc44.ref@yahoo.com> <1725f7c1-2084-a404-653d-9e9f8bbe961c@linux-m68k.org> <e10b8e06-6a36-5c83-89da-bec8fd7d3ed9@linux-m68k.org> <19d1f2ac-67dd-5415-b64a-1e1b4451f01e@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] ef5bcf6f-3541-50c2-9b6a-5e9d2f9c68d5@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] 87zg7rap45.fsf@igel.home> <[🔎] 5a5588ca-81c3-3f4c-fd43-c95e90b27939@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] 67f6bc5f-e1fc-64b9-cb3c-1698cf4daf51@gmail.com> <[🔎] 9eea635f-c947-eae7-09fa-d39f00d91532@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] 3dfea52a-b09e-517a-c3ca-4b559a3d9ce4@gmail.com> <[🔎] 23ddfd2a-1123-45ae-866d-158d45e23ba2@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] 2f241963-44cd-3196-b39e-9c2d63cda1d3@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] 60109ace-4e55-29da-86d9-35e931b11134@gmail.com> <[🔎] c77fe8b3-03fa-491b-7c10-64f2e52c748a@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] d025ad67-9cc2-cf5a-09a7-ce1d8f66109b@gmail.com> <[🔎] e777cb75-84f6-a61d-810a-2b6d0176e642@linux-m68k.org> <[🔎] c519ff55-fa2a-56c8-6d72-c5afab38ef48@gmail.com> <[🔎] 54597ab3-2776-2a55-9952-3bfbbc329829@linux-m68k.org>

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023, I wrote:

> Oddly, the program never detects any stack corruption when run on the 
> QEMU '040.
> 

I tested a Motorola '040 and got the same result.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>

References:
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: core dump analysis, was Re: stack smashing detected
  - From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
- reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis
  - From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>

Prev by Date: Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis
Next by Date: Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis
Previous by thread: Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis
Next by thread: Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread