[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] xen-unstable stubdom build-failure when debug=n
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 16:25 +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > Thursday, July 17, 2014, 4:13:11 PM, you wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 10:27 +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Today i tried to do a debug=n build of xen-unstable and ran into the build > >> error > >> below. > > > Yes, I see something similar: > > > stubdom/../extras/mini-os/include/mini-os/tpm_tis.h: In function > > âtpm_tis_request_locality.part.6â: > > tpm_tis.c:618:71: error: array subscript is below array bounds > > [-Werror=array-bounds] > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > > Not sure why it should be debug=n only though. > > > In the case I've got the code is: > > > s->loc[locty].ints &= ~(val & INTERRUPTS_SUPPORTED); > > > where locty is a uint8_t, so how it can be *below* the bounds I'm not sure. > > > dhcp.c:1359 in my copy (assuming it is similar to yours) is > > dhcp->msg_out->chaddr[i] = (i < netif->hwaddr_len) ? netif->hwaddr[i] : > > 0/* pad byte*/; > > where i is a u16_t. But this is an above array bounds error, so > > presumably the compiler thinks it knows something about the size of > > chaddr or hwaddr vs hwaddr_len. > > > > I'm not seeing anything in the logs for mini-os or stubdom since 4.4.0 > > which cry out to me as anything related. Except perhaps: > > > commit e6e9178431725c369aeac117badc546edf18ab07 > > Author: Thomas Leonard <talex5@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu Jun 26 12:28:22 2014 +0100 > > > mini-os: made off_t type signed > > > > POSIX requires this. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Leonard <talex5@xxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > But there doesn't seem to be any size_t's involved at either site. > > > *Confused* > > Hrmmm i only changed 2 things that made it build .. > 1) debug=n to debug=y > 2) implicit: > - the first build was after a "make mrproper", so that destroyed and > redownloaded all git sub repo stuff > - the second build was after a "make clean" after the first build > (and the change from debug=n and debug=y) > > So it could also be it doesn't build on the first build due too an ordering > issue of something that doesn't get cleaned by a make clean ? If that were the case then I'd expect git clean -ffffdqx && ./configure && make debug=n ; make debug=n to work as well, which it doesn't seem to. My guest is that turning off debug increases the optimisation level which somehow makes gcc decide this code is now wrong. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |