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.