[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#325739: marked as done (gcc-4.0: Segfault with gcc4 (and above) when using LD_PRELOAD)

Your message dated Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:34:47 +0100
with message-id <17869.48103.364456.708642@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Segfault with gcc4 (and above) when using LD_PRELOAD
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.1-2
Severity: important

Hi,

Description:
I am running a program that is outputing a file. The very same program
when run with LD_PRELOAD set to libGL.so, is segfaulting. The segfault
does not occur when using gcc2.95, gcc3.2, gcc3.3 and gcc3.4 (debian
package). The segfault also does not occur when 'unset'ing the env var
LD_PRELOAD.

The backtrace can be found here:
http://www.creatis.insa-lyon.fr/~malaterre/gcc/gdb.log



And I ran also strace with/ and without LD_PRELOAD set:

$ export LD_PRELOAD=/usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so
$ strace /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/VTK-gcc4/bin/vtkParseOGLExt
/home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/VTK-gcc4/Rendering
/home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/ParaView/VTK/Utilities/ParseOGLExt/headers/glext.h /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/ParaView/VTK/Utilities/ParseOGLExt/headers/glxext.h /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/ParaView/VTK/Utilities/ParseOGLExt/headers/wglext.h >& /tmp/log1

$ unset LD_PRELOAD
$ strace /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/VTK-gcc4/bin/vtkParseOGLExt
/home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/VTK-gcc4/Rendering
/home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/ParaView/VTK/Utilities/ParseOGLExt/headers/glext.h /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/ParaView/VTK/Utilities/ParseOGLExt/headers/glxext.h /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/ParaView/VTK/Utilities/ParseOGLExt/headers/wglext.h >& /tmp/log2

Those logs files can be found here:
http://www.creatis.insa-lyon.fr/~malaterre/gcc/log1
and
http://www.creatis.insa-lyon.fr/~malaterre/gcc/log2


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone interested in reproducing the bug need a debian testing with
gcc4:

(assuming gcc points to gcc 4.0.1)
$ sudo apt-get install cmake
$ cvs -d:pserver:anoncvs@vtk.org:2401/cvsroot/VTK login
$ cvs -d:pserver:anoncvs@vtk.org:2401/cvsroot/VTK co VTK
$ mkdir VTK-gcc
$ cd VTK-gcc
$ cmake ../VTK
$ make
...
It should take a while to compile, but when entering in
VTK-gcc/Rendering the segfault should occur.


Mathieu
Ps: Previous post can also be found on gcc mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-08/msg00883.html
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-08/msg00836.html


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (989, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-386
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Versions of packages gcc-4.0 depends on:
ii  binutils                    2.16.1-2     The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  cpp-4.0                     4.0.1-2      The GNU C preprocessor
ii  gcc-4.0-base                4.0.1-2      The GNU Compiler Collection (base 
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libgcc1                     1:4.0.1-2    GCC support library

Versions of packages gcc-4.0 recommends:
ii  libc6-dev                   2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Development Librari
pn  libmudflap0-dev             <none>       (no description available)

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Additional information was requested in July 2006, but not
received. Closing the report.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: