Re: Segfault in patch

[Bob Proulx]

Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Is this the proper place for "patch" bug reports?

Sending to address@hidden, as you have done, is the proper place
since that is the documented address for bug reports.  Let me note
that that address should go directly to the patch maintainers and I
believe also to the bug-gnu-utils mailing list.  I am a little fuzzy
on that so don't quote me unless it proves true later.  :-)

> I see references to a "address@hidden" mailing list all over the
> gnu website, but can't find the actual list.

There are several utilities that all forward to the shared
bug-gnu-utils mailing list but there isn't a page advertising this
anywhere.  Additionally several projects including patch have mail
sent to bug-PROJECT sent directly to the maintainers as well.

> Patch mishandles the program name when parsing arguments:
> 
> $ ./patch -Verbose
> Segmentation fault

Of course -Verbose should be --verbose but it should not core dump in
any case.

> $ patch -Verbose
> patch: invalid argument `erbose' for `--version-control or -V option'
> Valid arguments are:
>  - `none', `off'
>  - `simple', `never'
>  - `existing', `nil'
>  - `numbered', `t'
>
> $ patch --version
> patch 2.5.9

This is the correct behavior.  So at least the 'patch' installed on
your system appears to be operating correctly.

       -V method  or  --version-control=method
          Use method to determine backup file names.
          ...

And it didn't core dump.  So all is good.

> (gdb) run  -Verbose < patch.c
> Starting program: /home/bnesbitt/work/patch-2.5.4/patch -Verbose < patch.c

This makes it appear to me that you have patch 2.5.9 installed on your
system and it is found by PATH when you say "patch -Verbose" and it is
behaving correctly for you.  And you also have patch 2.5.4, an older
version, self compiled and this older version is the one that you are
debugging.

Without looking I can only presume that this was a bug that was fixed
between the two versions.  Is there a reason that you are trying to
use the older 2.5.4 version instead of the newer 2.5.9 one?

Now, regardless of everything else, I note that 2.5.4 is the last
"official" GNU release available from the official ftp.gnu.org site.
It is regrettable that this has lagged getting an official release
since 1999.  But I think most people are using the newer 2.5.9 test
release available from alpha.gnu.org because it contains various
updates which are needed and has proven quite stable in practice.  A
pragmatic answer.

  ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/diffutils/

If you are using a self-compiled version then can you try compiling
the 'patch' version 2.5.9 from there and seeing if it resolves your
problems?

> Bad references to the bug patch mailing list are here:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Bugs.html

The maintainers for patch have set it up so that bug-patch sends
reports to them directly.  I see in the changelog that this was done
with the 2.5.5 version of patch.  So I don't think we can call
address@hidden a bad address.  It is just confusing that there
isn't an associated mailing list just for that one program.  But it is
a single program and so sharing it here in bug-gnu-utils seems
reasonable.

Please let us know!

Bob