[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:20:31 +0200
From: Luka Marčetić <paxcoder@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Simple testing task - string functions
On 04/15/2011 01:11 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 07:59:33PM +0200, Luka Marčetić wrote:
>> Hello again.
>> Attached is the solution to the task. The program seems to preform
>> as expected, but may still need double-checking.
>> The tests therein fail where expected when linked with various old
>> versions of musl. Note that although the program is designed to
>> allow tests to fail gracefully as suggested, this does not happen
>> due to bugs in function implementations in said old versions that
>> the program depends on. Rich and Chris have confirmed a bug in 0.7.6
>> that causes a segfault in the siglongjmp (longjmp to be exact). I'm
>> still waiting for confirmation of inability of version 0.7.5 to
>> dispose the same signal to a specified handler properly.
> Here's an idea for avoiding the sigsetjmp/siglongjmp bug: just use
> setjmp/longjmp, and use sigaction with SA_NODEFER to install the
> signal handler. Actually sigaction should always be used to install
> signal handlers, since signal is under-specified and you can't be sure
> how it will behave.
>
> Rich
Hey.
I've been away (I'll explain why in #musl). Anyway, thanks for the
critique. I'll take your word and use sigaction further on. I may
correct these tests too for GSoC if you think they'll prove useful.
Anyway, we'll talk. It's now up to you guys to accept/reject my proposal
if I'm not mistaken.
Thanks
-Luka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
