This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

On 28/11/2018 15:43, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:02 AM Adhemerval Zanella
> <> 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?

Yes, this is the most portable way indeed to get the expected termination
value and I think we should use the same strategy on this tests.

However I wouldn't not expected that Linux with same arch would have
different returned values.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]