On Sunday, February 25, 2024 2:20 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: >On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:08:35PM -0500, rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On Sunday, February 25, 2024 1:45 PM, I wrote: >> >To: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >Subject: [BUG] 2.44.0 t7704.9 Fails on NonStop ia64 >> > >> >This appears to be a new issue introduced at 2.44.0. It only occurs >> >on >> NonStop ia64 >> >1..9 >[snip] >> >> I did find the following calls to write(), one of which might be involved. >> write() should not be used directly unless the count is clearly very small. >> Xwrite() should be used instead. There are other calls but those are >> either small or not on platform. > >(Probably a typ0: Xwrite() -> xwrite() > >But I think that this should be used: >write_in_full() My mailer autocorrected, yes, xwrite. write_in_full() would be safe, although a bit redundant since xwrite() does similar things and is used by write_in_full(). The question is which call is bad? The cruft stuff is relatively new and I don't know the code. >> reftable/writer.c: int n = w->write(w->write_arg, zeroed, >> w->pending_padding); >> reftable/writer.c: n = w->write(w->write_arg, data, len); >> run-command.c: len = write(io->fd, io->u.out.buf, >> t/helper/test-path-utils.c: if (write(1, buffer, count) >> < 0) >> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, buf, nbr); >> t/helper/test-windows-named-pipe.c: write(1, buf, nbr); >> trace2/tr2_dst.c: bytes = write(fd, buf_line->buf, buf_line->len);
