On 2026-09-23 15:56:20-0500, Danish Khateeb wrote: > nolibc's WIFSIGNALED() is true for status 0, so a child that exits with > 0 looks as if it was killed by signal 0. I ran into it in a nolibc init > for a QEMU test, which reported every clean exit of a child that way. > > Patch 1 fixes the macro. Patch 2 adds nolibc-test cases for the wait > status macros, which would have caught it. > > Tested on top of nolibc/for-next f2212892b6a0: > - x86_64: without patch 1, the new wifsignaled_exit0 test fails, and > the rest of nolibc-test gives the same results with and without it. > - x86_64, i386, and arm and sparc64 under qemu-user: all new tests pass. > - libc-test against glibc: all new tests pass, so the expected values > match glibc. > > Danish Khateeb (2): > tools/nolibc: fix WIFSIGNALED() for status 0 > selftests/nolibc: add tests for the wait status macros
Applied without the Cc stable, as we don't do that in the nolibc subsystem. Thanks! > tools/include/nolibc/types.h | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > base-commit: f2212892b6a0c2adab438783e9fa8093c90786d7 > -- > 2.55.0 >
