This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Recent 4.1 breakage...
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot labs dot mot dot com>
- Cc: hhinnant at apple dot com, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, ljrittle at motorola dot com
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:53:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: Recent 4.1 breakage...
- References: <200605181644.k4IGiUaC050865@latour.labs.mot.com>
Loren James Rittle wrote:
Frankly, that seems to me a QoI issue: seems very annoying that if
random processes using semaphores start failing for some reason, then
sempahore are not available anymore for the *whole* system...
Well, the test works the same way on a random version of Red Hat
thus glibc appers to work the same...
I see ;) Maybe there is a rationale for that, security?!?... I would
appreciate if someone could educate me about that...
I think all tests using SysV IPC need to be stuctured so that
the main process starts N children to conduct the test. The main
process is written so that abort is never called and it may
always cleanup the semaphore. Appears to affect only a small set
of tests.
Agreed. Actually, I wanted to post something very similar. If you want,
please file a PR about that, so we don't forget.
PPS, >Anyway, remains to explain why 26777 is failing in the first place on
FreeBSD. Without hints I have no idea, sorry.
Agreed, I will work on that now that we know why I saw semaphore
usage failure. ;-)
Ok, thanks.
Paolo.