On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
> wrote:
>> On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Khem Raj wrot
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:51:15PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 15 January 2012 14:36:55 Richard Braun wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > Your report is wrong. system is REQUIRED by POSIX to change the signal
> > > disposition for SIGCHLD, not
On 16/01/2012 9.09, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
>> wrote:
>>> On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>
When built without NPTL support (or for a sparc target), the system()
function doesn't conform to its specification. Namely, it uses signal()
to install/save/restore signal handlers, which may break applications
using custom handlers installed with sigaction(). In addition, it resets
the SIGCHLD ha
On Monday 16 January 2012 04:00:08 Richard Braun wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:51:15PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 15 January 2012 14:36:55 Richard Braun wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > Your report is wrong. system is REQUIRED b
On Monday 16 January 2012 02:40:22 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> On 15/01/2012 1.33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 January 2012 19:31:16 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Saturday 14 January 2012 10:10:19 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> >>> Test clean can be invoked with -j to exploits parallelism.
> >>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:54:52AM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> When built without NPTL support (or for a sparc target), the system()
> function doesn't conform to its specification. Namely, it uses signal()
> to install/save/restore signal handlers, which may break applications
> using custom han
On 16/01/2012 10.36, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> On 16/01/2012 9.09, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
>> On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
>>> wrote:
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> O
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Running `make clean` atm takes like 20 seconds because every subdir
> re-evaluates all the toolchain flags. Add some helpers to automate
> the process of setting up variables to cache the result of tests,
> as well as the checking of an alr
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> This is the THIRD time I've told you that blocking SIGCHLD rather than
> ignoring it is non-conformant, and I provided the relevant citation
> (link and quoted):
>
> The system() function shall ignore the SIGINT and SIGQUIT signals
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Running `make clean` atm takes like 20 seconds because every subdir
>> re-evaluates all the toolchain flags. Add some helpers to automate
>> the process of setting up variables to cache
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 07:05:23PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > This is the THIRD time I've told you that blocking SIGCHLD rather than
> > ignoring it is non-conformant, and I provided the relevant citation
> > (link and quoted):
> >
On Monday 16 January 2012 14:58:25 Rich Felker wrote:
> OK, I'm dyslexic or something and somehow permuted the signal names
> every time I read it. Sorry. I think your approach probably works, but
> it also means system() is completely unsafe to use in multi-threaded
> programs that handle SIGCHLD.
On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> Running `make clean` atm takes like 20 seconds because every subdir
> >> re-evaluates all the toolchain flags. Add some helpers t
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> Running `make clean` atm takes like 20 seconds because every subdir
>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> >> Running `make
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger
wrote:
> >> >> Running
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:53:02 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
> > your code does not handle such a case and unfortunately we use
> > --sort-sections alignment in uclibc build
>
> where ? i don't see it.
oh, the flag is "--sort-section alignment".
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 16 January 2012 18:53:02 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
>> > your code does not handle such a case and unfortunately we use
>> > --sort-sections alignment in uclibc build
>>
>> where ?
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> On 16/01/2012 9.09, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
>> On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
>>> wrote:
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj wr
> it also means system() is completely unsafe to use in multi-threaded
> programs that handle SIGCHLD...
Yes, and that's not a problem. system() is a horrible interface
anyway, if only because of the automatic shell invocation and
parsing; no self-respecting Unix programmer should ever use it.
sy
On Monday 16 January 2012 20:48:52 Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 16 January 2012 18:53:02 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
> >> > your code does not handle such a case and unfortunately we use
> >>
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> you don't check linker flags via gcc. you check the linker flags via the
> linker. this is why the cache funcs setup additional variables for use via
> the compiler driver.
right and one of those additional variables gets set wrongly to
On Monday 16 January 2012 04:54:52 Richard Braun wrote:
> --- a/libc/stdlib/system.c
> +++ b/libc/stdlib/system.c
>
> + sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
> + sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
> + sa.sa_flags = 0;
this leaves the other fields of sigaction uninitialized. i think we need:
if (c
On Monday 16 January 2012 21:39:34 Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > you don't check linker flags via gcc. you check the linker flags via the
> > linker. this is why the cache funcs setup additional variables for use
> > via the compiler driver.
>
> rig
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:52:58PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this leaves the other fields of sigaction uninitialized. i think we need:
>
> if (command == 0)
> return 1;
>
> + memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
> sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
> sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mas
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 01:38:57 Richard Braun wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:52:58PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > this leaves the other fields of sigaction uninitialized. i think we need:
> > if (command == 0)
> > return 1;
> >
> > + memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
> >
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:19AM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> Yes, and that's not a problem. system() is a horrible interface
> anyway, if only because of the automatic shell invocation and
> parsing; no self-respecting Unix programmer should ever use it.
> system() needs to be implemented for
28 matches
Mail list logo
