| List: | Commits | « Previous MessageNext Message » | |
| From: | Martin Hansson | Date: | December 16 2010 1:43pm |
| Subject: | Re: bzr commit into mysql-5.1-bugteam branch (martin.hansson:3520) Bug#58207 | ||
| View as plain text | |||
Jorgen Loland skrev 2010-12-16 12.27: > On 12/16/2010 11:16 AM, Martin Hansson wrote: >> Jorgen Loland skrev 2010-12-16 10.02: >>> >>> >>> On 12/16/2010 09:21 AM, Martin Hansson wrote: >>>> Jorgen Loland skrev 2010-12-15 14.07: >>>>> Martin, >>>>> >>>>> The fix looks good, but the test case in the patch does not give >>>>> valgrind warning. Please provide a test case that is fixed by the >>>>> patch (e.g., the one reported in the bug). If you violently refuse > to >>>>> replace this test, you can add one more instead. >>>> You did build with BUILD/compile-pentium-valgrind-max, right? If you >>>> still don't see it you might try to revert to the same revision as I >>>> committed into. >>>> >>>> Does the test case in the bug report give valgrind warnings but mine >>>> doesn't? If they do then that's serious enough, BUT... things actually >>>> changed *while* I was working on the bug. First time around, the first >>>> test caused a core dump. Then when I pulled the latest changes it >>>> didn't, and then two days later it caused a crash again. The bug is >>>> that >>>> we get a totally runaway pointer, so it's sensitive to just about >>>> anything. >>> >>> I compiled with compile-amd64-valgrind-max. >>> >>> Without your code changes, the test case in the bug report gives >>> valgrind warnings like this: >>> >>> ==7710== Invalid read of size 1 >>> ==7710== at 0x4C28E61: memcpy (mc_replace_strmem.c:497) >>> ==7710== by 0x76A3C3: create_tmp_table(THD*, TMP_TABLE_PARAM*, >>> List<Item>&, st_order*, bool, bool, unsigned long long, unsigned > long >>> long, char*) (sql_select.cc:10412) >>> >>> These warnings go away when I apply your fix. The test case you added >>> does not give valgrind warning before applying your code changes. >>> >> Revision number, please. > > 3524 gleb.shchepa@stripped > Just double-checking before I spend time investigating: You did apply my "hack" patch and it didn't give failed assertion, right? /Martin
