[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?
From: |
Jan-Benedict Glaw |
Subject: |
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!? |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:17:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Fri, 2007-06-08 11:54:17 +0100, James Youngman <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 6/8/07, Jan-Benedict Glaw <address@hidden> wrote:
> > hexdump (&my_long_double, sizeof my_long_double());
> > kill (getpid (), SIGABRT);
>
> or just call abort() which is designed for the purpose.
>
> > That way, you get a nice core dump and can call GDB with it. With
> > "clean" floats, just use GDB's "print" to print it (or even call
> > printf() with it.)
>
> If printf fails on the offending bit pattern, presumably that is not
> going to help.
It does! You've got the core file, so you have a second (and
third...) try to examine the offending bit pattern with different
methods.
> > You can fully control your cluster, but in the case discussed here,
> > the data was injected by a non-controlled source.
>
> No item of hardware is fully under control either. Push enough bits
> through it, some will get corrupted. As I said in the email to which
> you are replying, this happens in practice, for real.
Even for those cases: a loud crash is something that can be easily
debugged.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw address@hidden +49-172-7608481
Signature of: Gib Dein Bestes. Dann übertriff Dich selbst!
the second :
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, (continued)
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ben Pfaff, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Tor Myklebust, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Nix, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/07
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Nix, 2007/06/08
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, James Youngman, 2007/06/08
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jan-Benedict Glaw, 2007/06/08
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, James Youngman, 2007/06/08
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?,
Jan-Benedict Glaw <=
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, James Youngman, 2007/06/08
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Nix, 2007/06/08
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Jeremy Linton, 2007/06/08
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Nix, 2007/06/08
Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Paul Mackerras, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Andreas Schwab, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ulrich Drepper, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Bruno Haible, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, Ulrich Drepper, 2007/06/06
- Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?, James Youngman, 2007/06/07