On 01/01/2013 1:59, Eric Blake wrote:
Odd. I just noticed that my system is pegged at 100% CPU, attributed to
a syslogd process; wonder if severe load is the culprit that violates
the timing assumptions in that test. I killed that process, reran the
test, and no longer see the failure.
I'm wondering if I should tweak the gnulib test to use fork() instead of
system(), and maybe do a bit more handshaking, to guarantee that the
signal is being delivered when planned?
I've tried putting my system at 100% with some bat files
----------
@echo off
:loop
goto loop
And putting them in realtime. I've experienced a crash if you hit
Control+Z (pause) when you see "waiting" and the 'fg'
machine@VAIO ~/temp
$ time ./a.exe
running "sh -c 'sleep 1; kill -2 5856' &"
waiting
unblocking
real 0m2.231s
user 0m0.015s
sys 0m0.092s
machine@VAIO ~/temp
$ time ./a.exe
running "sh -c 'sleep 1; kill -2 11832' &"
waiting
[1]+ Stopped ./a.exe
real 0m0.890s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
machine@VAIO ~/temp
$ fg
./a.exe
unblocking
assertion "sigint_occurred == 1" failed: file "eh.c", line 56, function:
main
sh: line 0: kill: (11832) - No such process
Aborted (core dumped)
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
