[LLVMdev] Sanitizer test failure

[Renato Golin]

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