Kerberos is miscompiled by gcc-4.8. The impact is detailed at https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1347147, but here is a reduced test case. The expected return is 0, but when compiled with gcc-4.8 -O2, it returns 1.
$ cat bug.c
struct node { struct node *next, *prev; } node;
struct head { struct node *first; } heads[5];
int k = 2;
struct head *head = &heads[2];
int main()
{
node.prev = (void *)head;
head->first = &node;
struct node *n = head->first;
struct head *h = &heads[k];
$ gcc-4.7 -Wall -O2 bug.c -o bug; ./bug; echo $?
0
$ gcc-4.8 -Wall -O2 bug.c -o bug; ./bug; echo $?
1
$ gcc-4.9 -Wall -O2 bug.c -o bug; ./bug; echo $?
0
$ dpkg -l gcc-4.7 gcc-4.8 gcc-4.9
[…]
ii gcc-4.7 4.7.4-2ubuntu1 amd64 GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.8 4.8.3-6ubuntu1 amd64 GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.9 4.9.1-3ubuntu2 amd64 GNU C compiler
I bisected the point where the problem disappeared between 4.8 and 4.9 at r202525. However, I don’t understand why. I’m scared by the fact that r202525 was intended to fix a “missed-optimization” bug (bug 58404).
Kerberos is miscompiled by gcc-4.8. The impact is detailed at https:/ /bugs.launchpad .net/bugs/ 1347147, but here is a reduced test case. The expected return is 0, but when compiled with gcc-4.8 -O2, it returns 1.
$ cat bug.c
struct node { struct node *next, *prev; } node;
struct head { struct node *first; } heads[5];
int k = 2;
struct head *head = &heads[2];
int main()
{
node.prev = (void *)head;
head->first = &node;
struct node *n = head->first;
struct head *h = &heads[k];
if (n->prev == (void *)h)
h->first = n->next;
else
n->prev->next = n->next;
n->next = h->first;
return n->next == &node;
}
$ gcc-4.7 -Wall -O2 bug.c -o bug; ./bug; echo $?
0
$ gcc-4.8 -Wall -O2 bug.c -o bug; ./bug; echo $?
1
$ gcc-4.9 -Wall -O2 bug.c -o bug; ./bug; echo $?
0
$ dpkg -l gcc-4.7 gcc-4.8 gcc-4.9
[…]
ii gcc-4.7 4.7.4-2ubuntu1 amd64 GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.8 4.8.3-6ubuntu1 amd64 GNU C compiler
ii gcc-4.9 4.9.1-3ubuntu2 amd64 GNU C compiler
I bisected the point where the problem disappeared between 4.8 and 4.9 at r202525. However, I don’t understand why. I’m scared by the fact that r202525 was intended to fix a “missed- optimization” bug (bug 58404).