[LLVMdev] Sanitizer test failure

[Renato Golin]

Yup, using SIGHUP works.

On 29 July 2014 13:14, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could it be that I'm misunderstanding signal semantics, and SIGUSR1 is
> not guaranteed to be delivered (to the same process!) before kill()
> returns? Could you check if that's what happens by adding a sleep()
> somewhere?
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Evgeniy,
>>
>> Yes, it is. The problem here is that the program doesn't fail on my
>> box (release and debug builds), so I have no idea how to debug the
>> problem. According to the test, it's ran as "not
>> chained_origin_with_signals.cc.tmp", expecting it to fail. Also, the
>> FileCheck expects to find warnings on the output, for which there is
>> none
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing some CMake flag or library, and that's why the
>> signal functionality is not working on my box?
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>>
>> On 25 July 2014 09:39, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> is it still an issue?
>>> Just by looking at the code, I don't see why it could fail. Do you
>>> need any help debugging it?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm compiling compiler-rt via CMake+Ninja on x86_64+ArchLinux and one
>>>> of the tests fails on ToT:
>>>>
>>>> MemorySanitizer :: chained_origin_with_signals.cc
>>>>
>>>> The text expects uninitialized warnings while the execution prints
>>>> nothing, thus FileCheck fails.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone seeing this?
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> --renato
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev