-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bytes: comparing long byte slices on s390x gives incorrect results #26114
Comments
@gopherbot, please consider backport to 1.10 and 1.9. |
Backport issue(s) opened: #26117 (for 1.10), #26118 (for 1.9). Remember to create the cherry-pick CL(s) as soon as the patch is submitted to master, according to https://golang.org/wiki/MinorReleases. |
Change https://golang.org/cl/121495 mentions this issue: |
@billotosyr @bcmills might we know the cause/bissect of this regression? |
@odeke-em The incorrect assembly was part of the original port added in this CL: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/20946 so it isn't a regression per se, but since the bug is nasty and the fix is trivial it makes sense to backport it. |
Cool, thanks @mundaym! |
Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!
What version of Go are you using (
go version
)?master tip, plus 1.10, 1.9, 1.8, etc
Does this issue reproduce with the latest release?
yes
What operating system and processor architecture are you using (
go env
)?GOARCH="s390x"
GOBIN=""
GOEXE=""
GOHOSTARCH="s390x"
GOHOSTOS="linux"
GOOS="linux"
GOPATH="/gsa/tlbgsa/home/b/i/billo/work"
GORACE=""
GOROOT="/sandbox/billo/master/go"
GOTOOLDIR="/sandbox/billo/master/go/pkg/tool/linux_s390x"
GCCGO="gccgo"
CC="s390x-linux-gnu-gcc"
GOGCCFLAGS="-fPIC -m64 -march=z196 -pthread -fmessage-length=0 -fdebug-prefix-map=/tmp/go-build416940965=/tmp/go-build -gno-record-gcc-switches"
CXX="g++"
CGO_ENABLED="1"
PKG_CONFIG="pkg-config"
CGO_CFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_CPPFLAGS=""
CGO_CXXFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_FFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_LDFLAGS="-g -O2"
What did you do?
https://play.golang.org/p/A_j0ONgu6hS
What did you expect to see?
-1
What did you see instead?
0
This showed up in a leveldb application. I have a fix -- will submit the CL shortly. Also hoping for a backport to 1.10 and 1.9 if possible.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: