Re: OT: C programs and architectures (use on Fedora)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 08:41:03PM -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 20:19:48 -0400 Fred Smith
<snip>
> Sorry, I was not clear: I did not change the floats to doubles. Also, I
> forgot to add that the program segfaults at a printf statement. I am
> not understanding what the problem is at all. valgrind goes through
> just fine on the 32-bit machine:
> 
> ==15081== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
> 
> but not for the 64-bit machine. 
> 
> ==29284== Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
> ==29284==  Access not within mapped region at address 0xAccess not within mapped region at address 0x1u1
> ==29284==    at 0x36CFC48E29: vfprintf (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> ==29284==    by 0x4048CE: Print
> (in /home/maitra/PET/PToft/Recon2D/RadonAna/RadonAna) ==29284==    by
> 0x4027A6: init (in /home/maitra/PET/PToft/Recon2D/RadonAna/RadonAna)
> ==29284==    by 0x4014BE: main
> (in /home/maitra/PET/PToft/Recon2D/RadonAna/RadonAna) ==29284==  If you
> believe this happened as a result of a stack ==29284==  overflow in
> your program's main thread (unlikely but ==29284==  possible), you can
> try to increase the size of the ==29284==  main thread stack using the
> --main-stacksize= flag. ==29284==  The main thread stack size used in
> this run was 8388608. 0 : type===29284== 
> .....
> 
> What i don't understand is why valgrind's behaviour is so different for
> the two cases.

sounds as if there's SOMETHING in there that's assuming a 32-bit machine.
that statement "Access not within mapped region at address 0x1" is
definitely suspicious. if you change the compile command to so that
it uses "-O0 -g" rather than whatever it is using, you may find that
Valgrind gives actual line numbers, if it still fails when compiled
that way.

if you use GDB (or other debugger of your preference) you can get
a backtrace, once it segfaults, that may help you track where it
got a bad parameter (that 0x1 as an address is definitely suspicous.)


-- 
---- Fred Smith -- fredex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----------------------------
                         God made him who had no sin
                      to be sin for us, so that in him
                 we might become the righteousness of God."
--------------------------- Corinthians 5:21 ---------------------------------
-- 
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org




[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux