[LLVMdev] Sanitizer test failure

[Renato Golin]

Worked, thanks!

On 30 July 2014 09:37, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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