[illumos-Developer] Ugh... xdr_{float,double} problems

[Garrett D'Amore]

General review feedback:

No spacing between # and CPP directives, please.

I'm a bit worried about pragma redefine_extname -- what happens to that
on gcc or Studio?  Do they both support it?

I'm thinking #error might be better here.... it would force people
working on alternate processor ports to adapt the code...

	- Garrett

On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 14:27 -0600, Jason King wrote:
> Yeah, basically I'm a dumbass and shouldn't try to bugfix during weeks
> where I'm sleep deprived (my apologies to everyone for that).  Dr.
> Grabowski was right
> 
> I see the problem, and was able to get access to a S10 (sparc & x86)
> box to obtain a known good XDR bytestream (of floats and doubles) to
> test against so the test can be more definitive.
> 
> I have a webrev of the fix here: http://cr.illumos.org/view/kc6gu36g/
> The #pragma redefine_extname bit was a suggestion from Gordon (just to
> help people porting to other platforms out).
> 
> I really need to run errands now but will be back later to post the
> test code (short version, I take the known good stream from s10
> x86/sparc, decode it, compare values, then encode the values to
> another stream and compare vs. trying to 'guess' the correct values in
> the previous test), and take care of the rest.
> 
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
> > Any update on this?  I've not had a chance yet to backout your change..
> > I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is... I'd rather have a
> > "real" fix.
> >
> >        - Garrett
> >
> > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 12:10 -0600, Jason King wrote:
> >> Ok, however things will still be broken, my fix just breaks (or more
> >> precisely, breaks everyone's workarounds) faster.  I can probably have
> >> a true fix later tonight as well.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
> >> > Ok, I'll backout the changes.  Can you please file a bug?  I probably won't
> >> > get around to backing this change out until tonight as I'm traveling and on
> >> > limited battery power.
> >> >
> >> >    - Garrett
> >> >
> >> > On 01/28/11 08:48 AM, Jason King wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> After lengthy discussions, and even more digging... it looks like
> >> >> there's a bit of a very-long standing mess with the C xdr API.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem is, the OTW XDR format for 32&  64 bit doubles is
> >> >> identical on x86, amd64, sparc, and sparcv9.  In theory, the code
> >> >> should then just merely copy the values out unchanged.
> >> >> However, that really happened was on little-endian platforms, the byte
> >> >> values for fp values were being (incorrectly) byteswapped by the
> >> >> library.  Instead of fixing the library, it appears the existing
> >> >> software that actually uses fp with xdr workaround the bug on those
> >> >> platforms.  Of course the recent putback broke the workaround.
> >> >>
> >> >> Essentially:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. code is released with broken xdr_{float,double}
> >> >> 2. code is written w/ workarounds
> >> >> 3. code is updated, and __amd64 define is (incorrectly) changed to
> >> >> amd64.  This causes xdr_{float,double} to revert to a slower, platform
> >> >> independent version that correctly (minus rouding errors) writes the
> >> >> value into the stream (without swapping).
> >> >> 4. My fix correctly writes fp values unchanged to XDR stream, but also
> >> >> breaks any software with workarounds.  The test cases were written to
> >> >> the RFC&  man pages (since I couldn't really find anything out there
> >> >> that uses
> >> >>
> >> >> Given the pervasiveness of this, we probably need to do something similar
> >> >> to:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. Revert the behavior to the traditional broken behavior
> >> >> 2. Update the man pages to document this behavior
> >> >> 3. Add a #define to the rpc/xdr.h header file (XDR_FLOAT_NO_SWAP ?) to
> >> >> allow applications to select the correct behavior when defined (and
> >> >> document this in the manpage).
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Developer mailing list
> >> >> Developer at lists.illumos.org
> >> >> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Developer mailing list
> >> > Developer at lists.illumos.org
> >> > http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
> >> >
> >
> >
> >