https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--- Comment #14 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-01-02 12:17 ---
Removing host
--
laurent at guerby dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|arm_le,
--- Comment #13 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-31 09:42 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Does GCJ's behavior differ from Sun's in this test?
Well.. tried that (jdk1.6 i386)
Answer is: at this point NOT. So this is not an issue
But while performing this test I found a slight
--- Comment #7 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-30 09:34 ---
Problem is reproducible, but it likely should be posted to other list.
It looks that behaviour of particular utility rfcomm is such specific that
it not only ignores some signals but also forks one more child in detached
--- Comment #8 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-30 09:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=14139)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14139action=view)
test.java
test.java to run with bt_connect.bash
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33218
--- Comment #9 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-30 09:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=14140)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14140action=view)
script bt_connect.bash
script to use with 14139: test.java
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33218
--- Comment #10 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-30 09:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=14141)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14141action=view)
one more helper script bt_param.bash
helper script for 14139: test.java
--
--- Comment #11 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-30 09:41 ---
It looks that the fact that, rfcomm in some situations are killed when shell
script called with Proces.destroy() and in some situations don't
misleded me.
Also the strace shows that rfcomm sleep inside accept system
--- Comment #12 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-30 17:44 ---
Does GCJ's behavior differ from Sun's in this test?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33218
--- Comment #4 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-29 06:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=14129)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14129action=view)
Test case that works.
With the new Test case that works and attached test.sh and the original
test.sh I get no
--- Comment #5 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-29 06:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=14130)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14130action=view)
New test.sh
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33218
--- Comment #6 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-29 10:16 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=14129)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14129action=view) [edit]
Test case that works.
With the new Test case that works and attached test.sh and
--- Comment #1 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-28 15:59 ---
Can you post a fully self contained test case? If I can easily reproduce it, I
will try to fix it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33218
--- Comment #2 from cyberflex at mail dot ru 2007-08-28 16:43 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Can you post a fully self contained test case? If I can easily reproduce it,
I
will try to fix it.
Test case is to be following, but reproducing looks like to be a bit tricky :(
gcj (GCC)
--- Comment #3 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-28 16:56 ---
Looking at the current code, it seems that we may have a problem if we
destroy() a process that has already exited. The kill(2) man page suggests
that ESRCH could result, in which case we would throw an
15 matches
Mail list logo
