Re: [patch] Fix BZ#20544 (assert function passed to atexit/on_exit/__cxa_atexit != NULL)

[Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:02 AM Adhemerval Zanella
<adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:

Thanks for the review.

> #else
>   {
>     struct support_capture_subprocess result;
>     result = support_capture_subprocess (do_test_bz20544_atexit, NULL);
>     support_capture_subprocess_check (&result, "bz20544", 128 + SIGABRT,
>                                       sc_allow_stderr);

This doesn't work: the actual exit code on my Linux/x86_64 system is 6, not 134.

I notice that in libio/tst-vtables-common.c, Florian first initialized
expected SIGABRT termination_status in init_termination_status(), and
then used that in support_capture_subprocess_check() calls. Do I need
to do the same here?

A different way to ask: do different OSes encode WIFSIGNALED /
WIFEXITED differently?

Thanks,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov