dovecot - Oct 2018 - v2.3.3 rc1 - Error: sieve: !!BUG!!: Binary compiled from dovecot.sieve is still corrupt

On 25/09/2018 22:39, Stephan Bosch wrote:

Hello,
> Something mightily weird is going on at your end. It doesn't fail here
This is correct.  I believe there to be a compiler problem.  Removing 
optimisation from sieve-binary-code.c gives success.

Thank you to Stephan Bosch for testing this for me and pointing me in 
the right direction.

My debugging was confused because dovecot flags are passed to 
pigeonhole, eg $DOVECOT_CFLAGS.  This is why the build of dovecot 
affects pigeonhole.  Once I removed these I could control the pigeonhole 
build and I was able to isolate the problem.



James.

Op 1-10-2018 om 10:43 schreef James:
> On 25/09/2018 22:39, Stephan Bosch wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> Something mightily weird is going on at your end. It doesn't fail
here
>
> This is correct.? I believe there to be a compiler problem. Removing 
> optimisation from sieve-binary-code.c gives success.
>
> Thank you to Stephan Bosch for testing this for me and pointing me in 
> the right direction.
>
> My debugging was confused because dovecot flags are passed to 
> pigeonhole, eg $DOVECOT_CFLAGS.? This is why the build of dovecot 
> affects pigeonhole.? Once I removed these I could control the 
> pigeonhole build and I was able to isolate the problem.
Ok, good.

I'd still like to know whether doing this helps somehow:
> Does it help when you change the "> 0" at the following code
position
> to "!= 0" ?
>
>
https://github.com/dovecot/pigeonhole/blob/master/src/lib-sieve/sieve-binary-code.c#L300
Regards,

Stephan.

On 01/10/2018 13:37, Stephan Bosch wrote:
> I'd still like to know whether doing this helps somehow:
>
>> Does it help when you change the "> 0" at the following
code position
>> to "!= 0" ?
>>
>>
https://github.com/dovecot/pigeonhole/blob/master/src/lib-sieve/sieve-binary-code.c#L300
--- ../original/src/lib-sieve/sieve-binary-code.c	2018-02-05 
19:45:53.000000000 +0000
+++ src/lib-sieve/sieve-binary-code.c	2018-10-01 14:35:18.553169973 +0000
@@ -297,7 +297,7 @@
  		return FALSE;

  	/* Read first integer bytes [1xxxxxxx] */
-	while ( (ADDR_DATA_AT(address) & 0x80) > 0 ) {
+	while ( (ADDR_DATA_AT(address) & 0x80) != 0 ) {
  		if ( ADDR_BYTES_LEFT(address) > 0 && bits > 0) {
  			integer |= ADDR_DATA_AT(address) & 0x7F;
  			ADDR_JUMP(address, 1);


Quick reply: It does. I can't see why.



James.