This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Recent 4.1 breakage...
In article <446CFED6.1050704@suse.de>, Paolo Carlini<pcarlini@suse.de> writes:
> Humpf, I'm sorry, in the meanwhile I was testing the below, and I would
> be rather happy with it ;) I'm simply putting to good use our VERIFY
> machinery (*finally*, some people would add, I'm sure). The patch is
> very safe, basically the tests themselves are unchanged, and could still
> be run with _GLIBCXX_ASSERT defined, in case of need. Is it fine with you?
Yea, of course. There is still an open issue (in my mind) that VERIFY
status of a child process is not signaled to the test harness.
>> Well, I'm confused on the expected behavior of 26777 (even after
>> reading the PR) and exactly what I see on FreeBSD 5. Here is the read
>> on the fifo and the lseek from a truss log:
>> 82979: read(0x3,0x804d000,0x3ff) = 8 (0x8)
>> 82979: lseek(3,0xfffffffffffffff8,SEEK_CUR) = 0 (0x0)
>> Paolo, make any sense to you?
> Not really, *on the spot*, sorry (it's late here in Italy...). But I
> want to understand what's going on. Can you print to cout the failing
> oss.str()? Is it empty or not? Out of curiosity, which is the value of
> BUFSIZ on FreeBSD?
It was empty.
#define BUFSIZ 1024
Regards,
Loren