On Sep 18, 2008, at 2:36 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On (16/09/08 08:16), Chase Douglas wrote:
On Sep 16, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 05:30:46PM -0400, Chase Douglas wrote:
Hello all,

I submitted this as a bug report on uclibc.org
(http://busybox.net/bugs/view.php?id=4994). I wanted to be sure that
it

Can you reproduce it with current trunk?

I tried to build up a toolchain using the current trunk but I ran into
issues with one of the pthread headers. I can't remember specifically
what files were at issue, but it had something to do with the uClibc
headers including pthread.h which clobbered functions in auth-pam.c in openssh. If it is REALLY necessary that I test it on the current trunk I
may be able to fix it up enough to build what's necessary just for
testing, but I'll really need to be able to backport any changes
anyways.

I tried this testcase on arm NPTL on uclibc-nptl branch and it seemed to exit properly.
Following is spitted out. Is that what is expected ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ./a.out
Hung Thread Test: 30 threads @ 50 forks/loops
  system() without pipes not using /tmp
  hiding output
......................................................................................................................................................(2)(6)(5)(0)(8)(1)(14)(4)(17)(7)(3)(27)(28)(18)(25)(19)(21)(9)(10)(29)(20)(24)(15)(11)(13)(16)(12)(23)(22)(26)
=> Done <=

There's a couple issues here. First is that we are not using the nptl branch and are not interested in it due to code maturity reasons. Thus, we are using the linuxthreads.old library available in the standard uClibc.

Secondly, please try the test again as "./a.out fork pipes". We see the application progress without issue using the default arguments, but not when we start to use forks and pipes.

Thanks,
Chase

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc

Reply via email to