* [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] New: segmentation fault in busybox/glibc due to CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386
@ 2023-03-25 21:10 bugzilla
2023-03-25 21:12 ` [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] " bugzilla
2023-03-26 12:15 ` bugzilla
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla @ 2023-03-25 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=15491
Bug ID: 15491
Summary: segmentation fault in busybox/glibc due to
CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386
Product: buildroot
Version: 2023.02
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Other
Assignee: unassigned@buildroot.uclibc.org
Reporter: fesc2000@mailbox.org
CC: buildroot@uclibc.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
i was facing the issue that busybox (ls appled) was generating a random
segmentation fault in libc/ctime() (i386 platform, glibc 2.30).
The actual problem was that CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386 was set by default,
causing an 8 byte aligned stack, and glibc uses a movaps instruction on it
(which requires 16 byte alignment).
Obviously i could solve this by disabling CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386, but it
took me quite a while to find it out.
This really should be disabled by default. After some digging it seems that the
ABI nowadays mandates 16 byte stack alignment even for i386 (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38496).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] segmentation fault in busybox/glibc due to CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386
2023-03-25 21:10 [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] New: segmentation fault in busybox/glibc due to CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386 bugzilla
@ 2023-03-25 21:12 ` bugzilla
2023-03-26 12:15 ` bugzilla
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla @ 2023-03-25 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=15491
Felix Schmidt <fesc2000@mailbox.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host| |Embedded Atom CE2752
Build| |Linux x86
Target| |i686-buildroot-linux-gnu
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] segmentation fault in busybox/glibc due to CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386
2023-03-25 21:10 [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] New: segmentation fault in busybox/glibc due to CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386 bugzilla
2023-03-25 21:12 ` [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] " bugzilla
@ 2023-03-26 12:15 ` bugzilla
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla @ 2023-03-26 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: buildroot
https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=15491
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> ---
See also this patch and the discussion:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20230210233658.3763549-1-romain.naour@gmail.com/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-26 12:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-25 21:10 [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] New: segmentation fault in busybox/glibc due to CONFIG_STACK_OPTIMIZATION_386 bugzilla
2023-03-25 21:12 ` [Buildroot] [Bug 15491] " bugzilla
2023-03-26 12:15 ` bugzilla
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.