Dug a little more. Seems that ghc 7.4.* finalizes (ldap_unbind action) the ldap ptr before the references were actually dropped. On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:

Sorry for the attachments. They are wireshark files.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:

...

OK. Finally this problem totally prevents my project from working. By some guy's suggestion, I did a packet capturing, which really showed a difference. The rwdc file is for a ldap that at our IDC, which did not work with compiled binary. The rodc file is for a ldap that at local, which worked all the time. Each file contains two parts of records, at 3.* sec and 6/7.* sec. The 3.* part is for runhaskell way. The 6/7.* part is for compiled binary way. The big difference here is: the failed one sent unbindRequest before got bindResponse success. Just a clue, I have no idea what is going on....

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chris Dornan wrote:

...

No problem -- I have attached the executable too.

Chris

-----Original Message----- From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds@gmail.com] Sent: 01 June 2012 02:01 To: Chris Dornan Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?

I see. Although I am using a UTF-8 environment, but all string I was using were ASCIIs. If it is not too much trouble, may I have your LDAP compiled library files? I think since the Main.o is identical, maybe the libraries are different.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Chris Dornan wrote:

...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the fact that the hash tags are different -- they are very unlikely to be the same across two installations. (For example, my GHC installations are relocated under /usr/hs, immediately changing the contents of all of the .conf files and therefore the hashes.)

The object files are more interesting, and they are identical!

At the moment I can only explain what we are seeing by assuming that some change has affected the GHC 7.4.1 runtime system -- but only for compiled programs.

Are you using non-ASCII characters in your LDAP passwords? I am thinking that maybe the compiled 7.4.1 could be using a different LOCALE from everything else, leading in some way to the passwords being encoded differently en route to the LDAP server. I don't know whether this could actually happen, but it is the kind of mechanism that seem most likely to be causing the problem.

Did you try to running the variants that read address, account and passwords from standard input? Did it show the same perverse behaviour?

Chris

-----Original Message----- From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds@gmail.com] Sent: 31 May 2012 02:47 To: Chris Dornan Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?

Hi, I have compared the files. The .o-es are exactly the same. The .hi-s are different. The interface hash, flag hash, and "import -/ LDAP-0.6.6:LDAP.Constants xxxxx(hash)" are different. I do not know why only this module (LDAP.Constants) has a different hash. I am not quite familiar with ghc compiling process. May I know your conclusion?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Chris Dornan wrote:

...

Did you carry out a standard (optimised) build to get ghc-7.4.1?

Are you going to try the justhub rpms or compare the object/header files I sent.

Chris

-----Original Message----- From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds@gmail.com] Sent: 30 May 2012 04:07 To: Chris Dornan Cc: Haskell-Cafe Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?

A little information. I did not notice the gcc/binutils versions. But in CentOS, the ghc 7.2.2/7.4.1 were all compiled myself with all default configurations.

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Chris Dornan wrote:

...

On 29 May 2012 02:21, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote: > Interesting. I have this code tested in Debian unstable/stable, > CentOS 6.1, all 64 bit, with two different version of libldap2. > At first, Debian-s were installed with 7.4.1, CentOS with 7.2.2. > Only in CentOS the code connected after compiled. > Then I removed 7.4.1 from Debian stable and installed 7.2.2. The code worked. > At last, I installed 7.4.1 in CentOS. The code did not work. > > Could you send the .hi/.o to me, so maybe I could find out the > different? Also the exact original source. > Thank you.

Interesting indeed! I am guessing that you are using the GHC-7.4.1 bindist from haskell.org.

I will try and find some time to marshal the source code and intermediate files (am on the road -- will need to collect it from base, make it generic etc.).

You might also like to try the http://justhub.org ghc-7.4.1-hub on your CentOS-6.1 node. It is a separate build from the haskell.org bindist and comes with it's own in-board gcc (4.6.1) and binutils (2.21) used for the build. It should work for you.

(You could also try ghc-7.4.2-RC1-hub.)

Chris

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞 And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

Have found the place in openldap where the error occurs, but do not know why. Please refer to http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/6128 . On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:

I made a little code, to explicitly use unbind: ldapWith :: String -> LDAPInt -> (LDAP -> IO a) -> IO a ldapWith host port f = withCString host $ \cs -> do cld <- cldap_init cs port ptr <- checkNULL "ldapWith" (return cld) rv <- newForeignPtr_ ptr ldapSetVersion3 cld a <- f rv _ <- cldap_unbind cld return a

And it gave me another packet data. Sec 11 is runhaskell, Sec 15 is binary (failed). The failed one has a FIN, ACK, weird. LDAP-0.6.6 is a binding to c library without any other haskell library except base, I think how ghc works should not effect its internal network operation....

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:

...

Dug a little more. Seems that ghc 7.4.* finalizes (ldap_unbind action) the ldap ptr before the references were actually dropped.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:

...

Sorry for the attachments. They are wireshark files.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:

...

OK. Finally this problem totally prevents my project from working. By some guy's suggestion, I did a packet capturing, which really showed a difference. The rwdc file is for a ldap that at our IDC, which did not work with compiled binary. The rodc file is for a ldap that at local, which worked all the time. Each file contains two parts of records, at 3.* sec and 6/7.* sec. The 3.* part is for runhaskell way. The 6/7.* part is for compiled binary way. The big difference here is: the failed one sent unbindRequest before got bindResponse success. Just a clue, I have no idea what is going on....

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Chris Dornan wrote:

...

No problem -- I have attached the executable too.

Chris

-----Original Message----- From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds@gmail.com] Sent: 01 June 2012 02:01 To: Chris Dornan Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?

I see. Although I am using a UTF-8 environment, but all string I was using were ASCIIs. If it is not too much trouble, may I have your LDAP compiled library files? I think since the Main.o is identical, maybe the libraries are different.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Chris Dornan wrote:

...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the fact that the hash tags are different -- they are very unlikely to be the same across two installations. (For example, my GHC installations are relocated under /usr/hs, immediately changing the contents of all of the .conf files and therefore the hashes.)

The object files are more interesting, and they are identical!

At the moment I can only explain what we are seeing by assuming that some change has affected the GHC 7.4.1 runtime system -- but only for compiled programs.

Are you using non-ASCII characters in your LDAP passwords? I am thinking that maybe the compiled 7.4.1 could be using a different LOCALE from everything else, leading in some way to the passwords being encoded differently en route to the LDAP server. I don't know whether this could actually happen, but it is the kind of mechanism that seem most likely to be causing the problem.

Did you try to running the variants that read address, account and passwords from standard input? Did it show the same perverse behaviour?

Chris

-----Original Message----- From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds@gmail.com] Sent: 31 May 2012 02:47 To: Chris Dornan Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile?

Hi, I have compared the files. The .o-es are exactly the same. The .hi-s are different. The interface hash, flag hash, and "import -/ LDAP-0.6.6:LDAP.Constants xxxxx(hash)" are different. I do not know why only this module (LDAP.Constants) has a different hash. I am not quite familiar with ghc compiling process. May I know your conclusion?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Chris Dornan wrote: > Did you carry out a standard (optimised) build to get ghc-7.4.1? > > Are you going to try the justhub rpms or compare the object/header files I sent. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Magicloud Magiclouds [mailto:magicloud.magiclouds@gmail.com] > Sent: 30 May 2012 04:07 > To: Chris Dornan > Cc: Haskell-Cafe > Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] What is the difference between runhaskell and compile? > > A little information. > I did not notice the gcc/binutils versions. But in CentOS, the ghc > 7.2.2/7.4.1 were all compiled myself with all default configurations. > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Chris Dornan wrote: >> On 29 May 2012 02:21, Magicloud Magiclouds >> wrote: >>> Interesting. I have this code tested in Debian unstable/stable, >>> CentOS 6.1, all 64 bit, with two different version of libldap2. >>> At first, Debian-s were installed with 7.4.1, CentOS with 7.2.2. >>> Only in CentOS the code connected after compiled. >>> Then I removed 7.4.1 from Debian stable and installed 7.2.2. The code worked. >>> At last, I installed 7.4.1 in CentOS. The code did not work. >>> >>> Could you send the .hi/.o to me, so maybe I could find out the >>> different? Also the exact original source. >>> Thank you. >> >> Interesting indeed! I am guessing that you are using the GHC-7.4.1 >> bindist from haskell.org. >> >> I will try and find some time to marshal the source code and >> intermediate files (am on the road -- will need to collect it from >> base, make it generic etc.). >> >> You might also like to try the http://justhub.org ghc-7.4.1-hub on >> your CentOS-6.1 node. It is a separate build from the haskell.org >> bindist and comes with it's own in-board gcc (4.6.1) and binutils >> (2.21) used for the build. It should work for you. >> >> (You could also try ghc-7.4.2-RC1-hub.) >> >> Chris > > > > -- > 竹密岂妨流水过 > 山高哪阻野云飞 > > And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com. >

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞

And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞 And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.

Sorry for that. The problem got solved yesterday. On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Lars Viklund wrote:

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 09:41:43AM +0800, Magicloud Magiclouds wrote:

...

Sorry for the attachments. They are wireshark files.

May I suggest not sending multi-megabyte files of limited interest down a widely subscribed list? Contrary to popular belief, bandwidth, time and spool storage isn't free.

It might be a very good idea to take those off-list.

-- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞 And for G+, please use magiclouds#gmail.com.