Re: [LTP] [PROBLEM?] rt_sigaction01 still failed on x86_64

From: liubo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
Cc: ltp-list <ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PROBLEM?] rt_sigaction01 still failed on x86_64
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:41:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B81E0C8.9020205@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <364299f41001260843y72e9ac28nbe2cabee41b2055c@mail.gmail.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2151 bytes --]

On 01/27/2010 12:43 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>   
>> at 2010-1-26 16:25, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi, Cooper
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that you added a check of platform which not defined
>>>>> sa_sigaction in struct sigaction.
>>>>> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/syscalls/rt_sigaction/rt_sigaction01.c?r1=1.6&r2=1.7
>>>>>
>>>>> As your expectted, the following message will output on x86_64.
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> Your architecture doesn't support this test (no sa_sigaction field in struct sigaction).
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> But unfortunately, it still failed on my x86_64.
>>>>>
>>>>> On my x86_64, signal.h like this:
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef __i386__
>>>>>        (sa_sigaction defined here)  <--
>>>>> #else /* __i386__ */
>>>>>        (no sa_sigaction defined)    <--
>>>>> #endif /* !__i386__ */
>>>>>
>>>>> #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> your check still work ? Sorry, I don't know the check process in
>>>>> LTP configure clearly. Could you give me some explanation.
>>>>>           
>>>> Shi,
>>>>    I'm just going to test out the other proposed rt_sigaction, and
>>>> revert this change if it doesn't work back to a semi-functioning state
>>>> (which means that x86_64 will once again be broken).
>>>>         
>>>     Files reverted because liubo's patch didn't stick.
>>>       
>> Do you will pick out some useful code from liubo's patch ?
>> Previously, you said you would do that. (2009-12-22) ;-)
>>     
>
>     Yes, I did; I tried to apply the patch, almost all of the hunks
> failed to apply.
>
> Liubo,
>     Please generate a new patch and attach it someone can apply it and test.
> Thanks,
> -Garrett
>
>
>   
  Hi, Garrett,
  Sorry for replying so late.
  Sure, I'll generate a new patch based on the newest LTP version and
send it then.

  Thanks,
  Liubo


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3194 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list