[LLVMdev] Sanitizer test failure

[Evgeniy Stepanov]

r214289.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> I can. I've removed every other compilation flags from clang and even
> used GCC, with the exact same behaviour.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> On 29 July 2014 15:15, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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