[LLVMdev] Sanitizer test failure

[Evgeniy Stepanov]

You mean replacing SIGUSR1 with SIGHUP in the test case? Weird, I
don't see how they are different.

POSIX.1-2001  requires  that  if a process sends a signal to itself,
and the sending thread
       does not have the signal blocked, and no other thread has it
unblocked or is waiting for it
       in sigwait(3), at least one unblocked signal must be delivered
to the sending thread before
       the kill() returns.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> 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