On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote:
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:51:15PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 15 January 2012 14:36:55 Richard Braun wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
Your report is wrong. system is REQUIRED by POSIX to change the signal
disposition for SIGCHLD, not just to
On 16/01/2012 9.09, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote:
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:13
When built without NPTL support (or for a sparc target), the system()
function doesn't conform to its specification. Namely, it uses signal()
to install/save/restore signal handlers, which may break applications
using custom handlers installed with sigaction(). In addition, it resets
the SIGCHLD
On Monday 16 January 2012 04:00:08 Richard Braun wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:51:15PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 15 January 2012 14:36:55 Richard Braun wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:04:58AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
Your report is wrong. system is REQUIRED by POSIX
On Monday 16 January 2012 02:40:22 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
On 15/01/2012 1.33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 19:31:16 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 10:10:19 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
Test clean can be invoked with -j to exploits parallelism.
why
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:54:52AM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
When built without NPTL support (or for a sparc target), the system()
function doesn't conform to its specification. Namely, it uses signal()
to install/save/restore signal handlers, which may break applications
using custom
On 16/01/2012 10.36, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
On 16/01/2012 9.09, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote:
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Khem Raj
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
Running `make clean` atm takes like 20 seconds because every subdir
re-evaluates all the toolchain flags. Add some helpers to automate
the process of setting up variables to cache the result of tests,
as well as the
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
This is the THIRD time I've told you that blocking SIGCHLD rather than
ignoring it is non-conformant, and I provided the relevant citation
(link and quoted):
The system() function shall ignore the SIGINT and SIGQUIT signals,
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
Running `make clean` atm takes like 20 seconds because every subdir
re-evaluates all the toolchain flags. Add some helpers to automate
the process of
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 07:05:23PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
This is the THIRD time I've told you that blocking SIGCHLD rather than
ignoring it is non-conformant, and I provided the relevant citation
(link and quoted):
On Monday 16 January 2012 14:58:25 Rich Felker wrote:
OK, I'm dyslexic or something and somehow permuted the signal names
every time I read it. Sorry. I think your approach probably works, but
it also means system() is completely unsafe to use in multi-threaded
programs that handle SIGCHLD...
On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
Running `make clean` atm takes like 20 seconds because every subdir
re-evaluates all the toolchain
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
Running `make clean` atm
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM,
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 14:17:52 Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Mike
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:53:02 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
your code does not handle such a case and unfortunately we use
--sort-sections alignment in uclibc build
where ? i don't see it.
oh, the flag is --sort-section alignment. the code
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:53:02 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
your code does not handle such a case and unfortunately we use
--sort-sections alignment in uclibc build
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote:
On 16/01/2012 9.09, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
On 16/01/2012 8.53, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote:
On 15/01/2012 7.22, Khem Raj wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14,
On Monday 16 January 2012 20:48:52 Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:53:02 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 16 January 2012 18:06:12 Khem Raj wrote:
your code does not handle such a case and unfortunately we use
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
you don't check linker flags via gcc. you check the linker flags via the
linker. this is why the cache funcs setup additional variables for use via
the compiler driver.
right and one of those additional variables gets
On Monday 16 January 2012 04:54:52 Richard Braun wrote:
--- a/libc/stdlib/system.c
+++ b/libc/stdlib/system.c
+ sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
+ sigemptyset(sa.sa_mask);
+ sa.sa_flags = 0;
this leaves the other fields of sigaction uninitialized. i think we need:
if (command
On Monday 16 January 2012 21:39:34 Khem Raj wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
you don't check linker flags via gcc. you check the linker flags via the
linker. this is why the cache funcs setup additional variables for use
via the compiler driver.
right and
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:52:58PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
this leaves the other fields of sigaction uninitialized. i think we need:
if (command == 0)
return 1;
+ memset(sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
sigemptyset(sa.sa_mask);
-
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:19AM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
Yes, and that's not a problem. system() is a horrible interface
anyway, if only because of the automatic shell invocation and
parsing; no self-respecting Unix programmer should ever use it.
system() needs to be implemented for
26 matches
Mail list logo
