Testing new getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) implementation

Hi! I just got annoyed enough with the kFreeBSD message on the console: "pid %d (%s) is using legacy pty devices%s\n" that I started digging around. This is due to applications using the old BSD-style pseudo-terminal master device. I've switched the eglibc getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) to use

Re: Testing new getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) implementation

Hi! I've not build true ;-) or run tested the code, so if someone with an eglibc build-tree around could test the attached patch (against the glibc-ports tree) that would be pretty helpful With slight modification in progress. Petr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.de

Re: Testing new getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) implementation

or run tested the code, so if someone with an eglibc build-tree around could test the attached patch (against the glibc-ports tree) that would be pretty helpful With slight modification in progress. There are failures in testsuite, at least ptsname.c have to be updated too. Other related fu

Re: Testing new getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) implementation

On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 11:05:28 +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: > >>or run tested the code, so if someone with an eglibc > >>build-tree around could test the attached patch (against the > >>glibc-ports tree) that would be pretty helpful > > > >With slight modification in progress. Thanks for the buildi

Re: Testing new getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) implementation

There are failures in testsuite, at least ptsname.c have to be updated too. Ah right, had a small change for that one, but as there seemed to be more changed needed there I didn't include it, was not suspecting it would cause test suite failures. :) Attached now. Although the line with: p[0]

Re: Testing new getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) implementation

On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 11:05:28 +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: > There are failures in testsuite, at least ptsname.c have to be > updated too. > > Other related functions are: > grantpt(), ptsname(), unlockpt() Ok, I guess the obvious answer to this is:

Re: Testing new getpt(3) and posix_openpt(3) implementation

There are failures in testsuite, at least ptsname.c have to be updated too. Other related functions are: grantpt(), ptsname(), unlockpt() The set of changes is in our glibc-bsd SVN. It passes the testsuite, seems to work inside chroot. I have not committed it into pkg-glibc SVN due to tie with