>From the output, I'm wondering about the source of the Illegal instruction: 4 >diagnostic. If SIGILL isn't blocked, it would also exit the process, and I >believe run cancel handlers as part of process shutdown, whatever cancelstate >set to. So something about the code is suspect, but it may be a problem >internal to the pipe reads or writes, not the pthread routines or how they're >being used; possibly a buffer overrun or aggressive optimization issue, as a >guess.
As to certification, the person running the conformance test suites and submitting the results probably doesn't monitor bug reports. If the test suite passes, they happy, go on vacation, and figure any actual bugs a feature that can be ignored or is some underling's job to handle. If it doesn't pass, they file reports, not read them, and wait for someone to tell them try running it again. This may be unfair, but is frequently enough accurate. Whether the test suite is doing sufficient test cases to catch intermittent environmentally induced failures also unknown, and is another possibility, but at least one of the test suite maintainers does monitor this list. On Friday, November 4, 2016 Per Mildner <p...@sics.se> wrote: PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE has never worked reliably on OS X. This is true for all versions of OS X from 10.8 to 10.12, despite the fact that most of these have received Unix certification. This bug has been known by Apple at least since I reported the issue for OS X 10.8, in 2011 <http://openradar.appspot.com/9137682>. The lack of a working PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE makes pthread_cancel() more or less useless, and there is no workaround. I never got any feedback from Apple about this bug-report and would appreciate if anyone on this list can shed some light on the following. 1. Is my test program correct? That is, does it really expose a violation against the Unix standard? If my test is broken, please accept my apologies and ignore the rest of my email. 2. What is supposed to happen when a vendor gets notified about conformance bugs but never fixes them? That is, why does Apple get certification for new releases of their OS (macOS 10.12 <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3627.htm>) when they and others know before certification that it violates the standard? (I understand that there can be conformance bugs detected after a vendor receives certification and that there may be a delay in fixing bugs. But this is certification for new products that they knew from the start was non-conforming.) Regards, Per Mildner per.mild...@sics.se SICS Swedish ICT
