[PATCH 1/1] Fix segfault in DTC
From: Stephen Warren <hidden>
Date: 2012-10-01 05:34:50
Also in:
linux-devicetree
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2012-10-04 · Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix segfault in DTC · David Gibson <hidden>
- 2012-10-03 · Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix segfault in DTC · Stephen Warren <hidden>
- 2012-10-02 · Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix segfault in DTC · David Gibson <hidden>
- 2012-10-01 · Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix segfault in DTC · Stephen Warren <hidden>
- 2012-10-01 · Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix segfault in DTC · David Gibson <hidden>
On 09/29/2012 05:53 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 01:05:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:quoted
On 09/28/2012 12:53 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
Yeah, seems like the kernel DTC is quite old.FYI, I'm working on a patch to the kernel to bring in the latest dtc.Awesome. Thank you.quoted
I've run a regression test vs. the old dtc in the kernel ...Which is the icky step. Again, thank you.quoted
... and found that some of the PowerPC .dts files don't compile with the new dtc (but did with the old), all due to non-existent labels/paths being referenced. I'll try and track down whether this is a regression in dtc, or simply buggy .dts files that weren't noticed before.I think you should just smack the PowerPC guys. :-)For the record in this thread, it was a regression I introduced into dtc - the patch I just sent was for this.I would be nice to add a testcase for this regression into dtc.
The issue here was caused by uninitialized memory, so it would, I think, be basically impossible to create a test-case that would be guaranteed to fail because of this; it'd depend on the internal details of the malloc library and how/when it re-used previously free()d memory blocks.