GNU bug report logs - #61489
[PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵

Previous Next

Full log

Message #95 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:53:46 +0200

> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:58:06 +0300
> 
> On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 18:33 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> > On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 17:00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > Cc: 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > > > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:26:58 +0200
> > > > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> > > > 
> > > > > * src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, installed on the master branch, and closing the bug.
> > > 
> > > Note: this change breaks the unexec build, see bug#61960.
> > 
> > Oh, I see, thanks! I'll try to build Emacs with sanitizer, it's usually pretty
> > good at that kind of bugs. Will see if there's anything obvious
> 
> FTR: it might take longer than I expected, because for unknown reason Emacs built with sanitizer isn't built with sanitizer. Yeah, lol. I passed the `-fsanitize=address,undefined` to CFLAGS, and `./configure …` output even confirmed it registered them. However, after everything was built, it does not make use of sanitizer.
> 
> I also realised I forgot to pass `-lasan` to LDFLAGS, so the build should've failed at link-stage. Apparently there are some bugs in the build system related to passing cflags through to the actual compiler.

Are you saying that the advice in etc/DEBUG how to set this up and how
to run the resulting Emacs is inaccurate or incorrect or outdated?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.