From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.bugs,gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: bug in check for stack growth direction in _AC_LIBOBJ_ALLOCA Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:01:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87wrghlynh.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87d3ic92sc.fsf@pobox.com> <4DFD1BAB.40905@cs.ucla.edu> <87oc1todb4.fsf@pobox.com> <4DFEDC29.1040201@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308556921 14910 80.91.229.12 (20 Jun 2011 08:02:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile , bug-autoconf@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: bug-autoconf-bounces+gnu-bug-autoconf=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 20 10:01:56 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gnu-bug-autoconf@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QYZQi-00022k-8s for gnu-bug-autoconf@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:01:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38312 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QYZQh-0006Dh-Cv for gnu-bug-autoconf@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:01:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QYZQJ-0006DI-Sm for bug-autoconf@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:01:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QYZQG-0004XA-7h for bug-autoconf@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:01:31 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:59406 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QYZQG-0004X0-5A; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:01:28 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C83F33DF; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:03:39 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lXK0UBcdl1vLzQNPWJwuPPvNQe0=; b=xhSZRp DeBUr7xQ9hJP3uJKoTs0ts3RSSIEySZ3tH6HfRcNwqWNtmk+VLALiOGgxau6v0nD k+tYJ44Ye8nKxB7JpXs58oPrzVtHz8mbBH+MeD1h70MBMRoFlzac5T6m20cTlI/v 1sY4n5gYGR9puNJ8k+y+BlaFbntVx9MlrDiQ0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Gy0Y8zZXUnEnrhVG4XnJNV+OSDgabLfY NNJ1kZ+NTap0147fAeK00AvT375m2nRMfYIEPFEKD3sQOUZaS6iwB1cct5Rwwb49 ENZ7hU8FQd8SkLVypATT1Nnb9YmxZqqTUkm6DlN8Xv3cTrqGjkwzHEj/KwqT13Xa pDA22rwlBvE= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FDF33DC; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5741A33D4; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:03:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4DFEDC29.1040201@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:35:37 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CE107354-9B13-11E0-8198-5875C023C68D-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: bug-autoconf@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for autoconf List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-autoconf-bounces+gnu-bug-autoconf=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-autoconf-bounces+gnu-bug-autoconf=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.bugs:7954 gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:5677 Archived-At: On Mon 20 Jun 2011 07:35, Paul Eggert writes: > On 06/19/11 12:01, Andy Wingo wrote: >> No, this program also exhibits the same incorrect behavior, for purposes >> of stack growth checking. > > Thanks, I guess we'll have to turn it up a notch. How about the > following test program? Works for me. It's very nasty though :-P Andy -- http://wingolog.org/