[LLVMdev] Sanitizer test failure

[Evgeniy Stepanov]

OK, we can switch to SIGHUP. Could you please verify that this SIGUSR1
behavior is not caused by MSan?

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> 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