Tim Ruehsen tim.rueh...@gmx.de writes:
And SIGBUS could also occur out of any other reason (e.g. real bugs in Wget).
As was already said, replacing mmap by read would not crash (wget_read_file()
reads as many bytes as there are without prior checking the length of the
file). But without
- Original Message -
Very well, if this would be possible. Right now I have no idea how to print
something like the above. I made Tomas Hozza's test with valgrind and wget
having debug info. I got 18x (out of 20x) SIGBUS, but on completely different
places in the code. Within the
On Tuesday 03 September 2013 23:00:57 Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
There was an unexpected signal SIGBUS. It may be a bug or a misuse of
Wget
or your hardware is broken. Please think about it..
If you think SIGBUS is the ultimate way to inform a user
On 04/09/13 09:38, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
Very well, if this would be possible. Right now I have no idea how to print
something like the above. I made Tomas Hozza's test with valgrind and wget
having debug info. I got 18x (out of 20x) SIGBUS, but on completely different
places in the code. Within
Hello.
In Fedora I have a bug [1] from guy that is using wget
to test web server network load. He runs multiple
instances of wget to download some site recursively.
Something like this:
for i in `seq 20`; do
wget -r http://www.makerwise.com/
done
Some of those wget instances are killed
- Original Message -
On Tuesday 03 September 2013 03:17:56 Tomas Hozza wrote:
In Fedora I have a bug [1] from guy that is using wget
to test web server network load. He runs multiple
instances of wget to download some site recursively.
Something like this:
for i in `seq
On Tuesday 03 September 2013 03:48:15 Tomas Hozza wrote:
BTW, read() instead of mmap() would not help in this case.
It would eliminate the SIGBUS because the length of the file
is determined from the number of read bytes by read(). This way
we might end up with truncated file, but will not
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
but in general it is a good idea not to suppress errors or misbehavior, just
to make people feel better.
Then it should return an error and error message etc, it shouldn't crash with
a SIGBUS...
--
/ daniel.haxx.se
but in general it is a good idea not to suppress errors or misbehavior,
just to make people feel better.
Then it should return an error and error message etc, it shouldn't crash
with a SIGBUS...
We could add a simple signal handler to catch a SIGBUS and gracefully exit.
--
Thanking You,
On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:59:20 Daniel Stenberg wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
but in general it is a good idea not to suppress errors or misbehavior,
just to make people feel better.
Then it should return an error and error message etc, it shouldn't crash
with a
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
There was an unexpected signal SIGBUS. It may be a bug or a misuse of Wget
or your hardware is broken. Please think about it..
If you think SIGBUS is the ultimate way to inform a user about an error
situation, then by all means do that. I wouldn't.
--
On 03/09/13 11:16, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
What should it say than ?
My ideas are limited to something like
There was an unexpected signal SIGBUS. It may be a bug or a misuse of Wget or
your hardware is broken. Please think about it..
This does not give more information than a SIGBUS.
Ideas welcome.
12 matches
Mail list logo
