Test

2001-01-11 Thread Jonathan Gift
No traffic, just testing up and running... Jonathan

Re: test program for waitpid/sigchld problems

2000-11-10 Thread Raphael Quinet
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, Michael Natterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) writes: > > Maybe we should all do our "mea culpa" and test a bit more seriously > > especially on non-Linux platforms, now that 1.2 is just around the > >

Re: test program for waitpid/sigchld problems

2000-11-09 Thread Ignatios Souvatzis
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:52:07AM +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote: > Included below is a small test program that checks how the OS behaves > when a child process exits while the parent is blocking on waitpid() > and has a SIGCHLD handler installed (which also calls waitpid, and > thus

Re: test program for waitpid/sigchld problems

2000-11-08 Thread Jaromír Dolecek
Raphael Quinet wrote: > Included below is a small test program that checks how the OS behaves > when a child process exits while the parent is blocking on waitpid() > and has a SIGCHLD handler installed (which also calls waitpid, and > thus could steal the status if the signal handl

Re: test program for waitpid/sigchld problems

2000-11-08 Thread Michael Natterer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) writes: > On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, Ludovic Poitou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's the results I got with your test program on Solaris 8, OSF1, > > HP-UX, AIX. > [...] > > Results on Solaris 8: > > sigchld han

AIX 4.3, IRIX 5.3, SunOS 4.1.1 (Re: test program for waitpid/sigchld problems)

2000-11-08 Thread Tomas Ogren
On 08 November, 2000 - Raphael Quinet sent me these 2.2K bytes: > If you are running another UNIX-like system (*BSD, HP-UX, AIX, etc.), > it would be nice if you could compile and run the following code and > report what it says. The code does not depend on glib, gtk or any > other libraries, so

Re: test program for waitpid/sigchld problems

2000-11-08 Thread Raphael Quinet
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, Ludovic Poitou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's the results I got with your test program on Solaris 8, OSF1, > HP-UX, AIX. [...] > Results on Solaris 8: > sigchld handler was called before waitpid (no status) [...] > Results on OSF1- V4.0 True64

Re: test program: FreeBSD, IRIX 6.5

2000-11-08 Thread Jarda Benkovsky
FreeBSD 3.4-STABLE: installing signal handler... forking... waiting for child 25282 to exit... child 25282 has exited sig_pid = 25282 sig_status = 25600 main_pid = -1 main_status = sigchld handler was called before waitpid (no status) IRIX 6.5 IP22: installing signal handler... fork

Re: test program for waitpid/sigchld problems

2000-11-08 Thread Ludovic Poitou
Here's the results I got with your test program on Solaris 8, OSF1, HP-UX, AIX. Ludovic. Results on Solaris 8: bondi> sigtest installing signal handler... forking... waiting for child 9253 to exit... child 9253 has exited sig_pid = 9253 sig_status = 25600 main_pid = -1 mai

test program for waitpid/sigchld problems

2000-11-08 Thread Raphael Quinet
Included below is a small test program that checks how the OS behaves when a child process exits while the parent is blocking on waitpid() and has a SIGCHLD handler installed (which also calls waitpid, and thus could steal the status if the signal handler is called before the first waitpid

Re: Wrong test for newer/older version of autoconf in the cvs

2000-06-25 Thread David Odin
On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 03:30:55PM +0200, David Odin wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 02:26:57PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 01:39:43AM +0200, David Odin wrote: > > >Testing autoconf... > > >expr: syntax error > > >too old! (Need 2.13, have 2.14 > > > [ ... ] >

Re: Wrong test for newer/older version of autoconf in the cvs

2000-06-25 Thread David Odin
On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 02:26:57PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 01:39:43AM +0200, David Odin wrote: > >Testing autoconf... > >expr: syntax error > >too old! (Need 2.13, have 2.14 > > [ ... ] > > Most likely, you have 2.14a or something like that. Yes I have 2.1

Re: Wrong test for newer/older version of autoconf in the cvs

2000-06-25 Thread Steinar H. Gunderson
On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 01:39:43AM +0200, David Odin wrote: >Testing autoconf... >expr: syntax error >too old! (Need 2.13, have 2.14 > [ ... ] Most likely, you have 2.14a or something like that. I sent a patch to Sven a few days ago that should fix this -- you may want to do a CVS update to see

Wrong test for newer/older version of autoconf in the cvs

2000-06-24 Thread David Odin
Hi, The latest cvs version of gimp include checks for recent versions of auto[conf|make]. It seems that these tests are wrong, at least on my box: $ ./autogen.sh I am testing that you have the required versions of autoconf, automake and gettext. This test is not foolproof, so if anything

test (ignore, blah)

2000-01-16 Thread Tuomas Kuosmanen
work! :) -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'

test (ignore)

2000-01-16 Thread Tuomas Kuosmanen
swallow this, procmail! -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'