Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
/*
gcc test.c -o test -Wall
*/
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#define TEMP_PATH "/tmp/ipctest.1234
Hi,
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
Mac OS X Server 10.4 works (prints "success").
Darwin X91-186.local.lan 8.10.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.0: Wed May 23
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 17:55 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
And also: I think (guess) that behavior is required by POSIX, but it
On Seg, 2009-10-19 at 23:59 +0200, Anton Dollmaier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> > should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> > 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
>
> Mac OS X Server 10.4 works (prints "success").
>
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
"success" on IRIX 6.5.30
Heiko
Heiko Schlichting Freie Universität Berlin
he...@cis.fu-berlin.de Zentraleinric
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
>
>
Fine in Solaris 2.8 (32-bit and 64-bit binaries, Sparc).
Chris
--
--+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
success
on Debian Testing
Linux serv 2.6.30-2-486 #1 Sat Sep 26 00:03:46 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Benn
Sucess on freebsd-6.2
Sucess on Linux 2.4.20 sparc64
The most out of date, oddball systems I have logins too.
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBS
On Oct 19, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
I'm still interested in HP-UX, AIX and Cygwin results. Maybe in Cygwin
it c
On Oct 19, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work?
Mac OS X 10.5.8(Client) - Success
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
FreeBSD-6.3-x86
FreeBSD-7.1-x86
FreeBSD-7.2-amd64
FreeBSD-8.0-RC1-x86
All success
--
Best regards,
Prosku
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:55:20PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
Success on NetBSD 5.0_STABLE on amd64 (64-bit).
Ge
On Monday 19 October 2009 23.55.20 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
"success" on OpenBSD 4.5 and 4.6 and -current.
Daniel
--
LÉVAI Dá
Timo Sirainen:
> I'm still interested in HP-UX, AIX and Cygwin results. Maybe in Cygwin
> it could be broken, but then again I don't really care about Cygwin.
On Cygwin 1.7 (the version currently under development) it works:
$ uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-5.1 sauron 1.7.0(0.214/5/3) 2009-10-03 14:33 i68
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
uname -a
HP-UX delta B.11.11 U 9000/800 109434696 unlimited-user license
aCC -c -DHP_UX -v +O2 test.c
Hello
Debian:
$ uname -a
Linux gaa 2.6.30-2-686 #1 SMP Sat Sep 26 01:16:22 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
$ gcc -o test -Wall test.c
$ ./test
failed: 2. offset=2
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
Le 19 oct. 2009 à 22:55, Timo Sirainen a écrit :
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
Succeeds here on Mac OS X 10.6.1, with gcc version 4.2.1 (Apple Inc.
build
> Success on NetBSD 5.0_STABLE on amd64 (64-bit).
Also on 3.1.0_PATCH/i386, 3.0.1/sparc and 4.0.1/{amd64,i386}
On Monday 19 October 2009 23:55:20 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
>
on Fedora 11 (Linux 2.6.30.9 64bit) it failed 3 times (of 200 runs)
On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
On Monday 19 October 2009 23:55:20 Timo Sirainen wrote:
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
on Fedora 11 (Lin
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:46:22PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> >Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> >should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> >10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
>
>
On 10/19/09 4:55 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
>
Success on OS X 10.6.1 (Darwin kernel 10.0)
Timo Sirainen wrote, On 10/19/09 6:11 PM:
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 17:55 -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
And also: I think (guess) tha
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 14:52 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
> > And also: I think (guess) that behavior is required by POSIX, but it
> > would be nice if someone could verify that. :) The behavior being:
> > seeking in a fd is affects all processes that have the same fd open.
> > (Simple IPC, yay.)
>
> As
Timo, you test program runs fine on MacOSX 10.5.8 (Darwin Kernel
Version 9.8.0)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
>
>
FreeBSD 6.4 --> success
--
Best regards,
Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
Success on
CYGWIN_NT-5.1 XX 1.5.25(0.156/4/2) 2008-06-12 19:34 i686 Cygwin
Timo Sirainen schrieb am 19.10.2009 23:55:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So far tested for success: Linux 2.6, Solaris
> 10, FreeBSD 7.2, OpenBSD 4.2.
>
http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
I'd want to know what results this program gives with different systems.
Please test and reply (but don't bother if someone already replied with
the same OS+result). I expect it to print:
- SMP kernels: "page size cut" once in a while
- UP (uniprocessor) ker
If there is no output, whats the longest you want us to wait
while it runs? How much do you care about unique OS/arch/cpu/fs
combinations (what factors shouldn't matter)? I assume you want
just one reader and one writer, started in the order listed in
the source?
I currently have it running on S
NetBSD 3.1 (GENERIC)
No output, as expected after about 15min running.
Daniel.
Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
I'd want to know what results this program gives with different systems.
Please test and reply (but don't bother if someone already replied with
the same OS
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 20:16 -0400, Adam McDougall wrote:
> If there is no output, whats the longest you want us to wait
> while it runs?
I think if it hasn't printed anything for 15 minutes it's pretty safe to
assume it's not going to print anything.
> How much do you care about unique OS/arch/cp
Timo Sirainen said the following on 20/6/2007 1:41:
http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+ 2.6.21-1.3228.fc7 (Fedora 7)
Noting.
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.06GHz w/HyperThreading 2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp (Red Hat)
page size cut after a couple of minutes
Ciao,
lu
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 03:31:21AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 20:16 -0400, Adam McDougall wrote:
> If there is no output, whats the longest you want us to wait
> while it runs?
I think if it hasn't printed anything for 15 minutes it's pretty safe to
assume it's
Hi Timo,
Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
I'd want to know what results this program gives with different systems.
Please test and reply (but don't bother if someone already replied with
the same OS+result). I expect it to print:
- SMP kernels: "page size cut" once in
Hi Timo,
> http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
[cut]
> So far I've tested only with Linux 2.6.21 x86-64/SMP and a slow
> Solaris/Sparc/UP.
One writer and three readers ran for 30 minutes on Solaris 10 without
printing anything. The box is an UltraSparc IIIi dual proc, and the FS on
the partiti
Quoting Timo Sirainen:
> http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
>
> I'd want to know what results this program gives with different systems.
> Please test and reply (but don't bother if someone already replied with
> the same OS+result). I expect it to print:
Dual Pentium III 1133MHz: one "page si
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 02:41:42AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
>
> I'd want to know what results this program gives with different systems.
> Please test and reply (but don't bother if someone already replied with
> the same OS+result). I expect it to print:
Hi Timo,
It prints the following:
./concurrency
writing, page size = 8192
./concurrency 1
reading, page size = 8192
This is a:
SunOS 5.10 Generic_118833-33 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240
psrinfo -v
Status of virtual processor 0 as of: 06/20/2007 21:00:33
on-line since 04/05/2007 16:1
On Tue, June 19, 2007 7:41 pm, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
>
> I'd want to know what results this program gives with different systems.
> Please test and reply (but don't bother if someone already replied with
> the same OS+result). I expect it t
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:41 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
>
> I'd want to know what results this program gives with different systems.
> Please test and reply (but don't bother if someone already replied with
> the same OS+result). I expect it to print:
>
> -
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:41 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
Works on dual processor running latest Fedora 7:
net1#uname -a
Linux net1.coolsurf.com 2.6.21-1.3228.fc7 #1 SMP \
Tue Jun 12 14:56:37 EDT 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU
OS: CentOS 4.5 (Final) (RHEL4 clone)
$ /usr/bin/time -f "total time: %E\ni/o waits: %w\n" ./concurrency
writing, page size = 4096
Command terminated by signal 2
total time: 10:41.53
i/o waits: 312177
$ /usr/bin/time -f "total time: %E\ni/o waits: %w\n" ./concurrency 1
reading, page size = 4096
p
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:41 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
You can forget about this for now. There was one bug in it and with a
couple of changes I can't break it in my own system either anymore.
Wonder why I'm seeing similar problems in Dovecot v1.1 code..
Am Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2007 schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
Mh...
"19:51:35 FEHLER 404: Not Found."
I just wanted to test it using Linux 2.6.21 on my Core2 Duo T7200 running
Debian Unstable...
Does anyone still have the file?
Greetings,
Gunter
--
*** Powered
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 20:11 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:41 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
>
> You can forget about this for now. There was one bug in it and with a
> couple of changes I can't break it in my own system either anymore.
Am Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2007 schrieb Gunter Ohrner:
> Am Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2007 schrieb Timo Sirainen:
> > http://dovecot.org/tmp/concurrency.c
> Does anyone still have the file?
Ok, there was a race between Thimos and my mails... ;)
Greetings,
Gunter
--
*** Powered by AudioScrobbler --> http
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 02:41 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> - SMP kernels: "page size cut" once in a while
exactly what happens with Linux 2.6.22-rc5 on my quad powermac
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Success on
AIX 5300-08
AIX 5300-06
AIX 5200-06
AIX 5100-00
AIX 4330-11
Failed on
AIX 5300-03 failed: 2. offset=2
AIX 4330-10 failed: 2. offset=2
Timo Sirainen schrieb am 19.10.2009 23:55:
> Can someone find an OS where the attached program doesn't work? It
> should print "success". So
That's weird.. Did you run it a couple of times on the failed ones?
On Oct 20, 2009, at 4:31 AM, Ralf Becker wrote:
Success on
AIX 5300-08
AIX 5300-06
AIX 5200-06
AIX 5100-00
AIX 4330-11
Failed on
AIX 5300-03 failed: 2. offset=2
AIX 4330-10 failed: 2. offset=2
Timo Sirainen schrieb
Testing all again multiple times
System | Kernel | x out of 100 failed with
| x Bit | "failed: 2. offset=2"
++
AIX 5300-08 | 64 | 0 (!)
AIX 5300-08 | 32 | 69
AIX 5300-03 | 64 | 81
AIX 5200-06 | 64 | 9
AIX 5100-
On 10/20/2009 11:25 AM Ralf Becker wrote:
> Testing all again multiple times
> …
Hm, running multiple times shows some problems (on Linux).
Linux | OpenBSD | FreeBSD
2.6.30-2 amd64 | 4.2 GENERIC i386 | 7.2-RELEASE i386
-- +--+-
51 matches
Mail list logo
