[LLVMdev] Sanitizer test failure

[Renato Golin]

On 29 July 2014 15:02, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> You mean replacing SIGUSR1 with SIGHUP in the test case? Weird, I
> don't see how they are different.

So, AFAIK, they should be identical. But I put some printfs and sleeps
around and it wasn't a synchronization issue. My man page says that
SIGUSR1 should terminate if there isn't a handler for it (different
than SIGINFO), but the process didn't terminate neither ran the
handlers, which is odd. SIGHUP didn't have that behaviour, and
executed the handler.

I'm not an expert in signals, so I can't comment on that part. But
given that this test is not about signals, but about the uninitialized
variable, I guess making it SIGHUP wouldn't hurt too much. :)

cheers,
--renato