Hi, On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:43:51 +0300 Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:33:53PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0300 > > Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:00:47AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > > > > > > Is this change of behaviour a feature or a bug? > > > > > > Provide a minimal example demonstrating the issue. > > > > while preparing the example I found the source of the problem. We > > have to block all signals for some reason. The handling for > > > > signal (SIGTHR, SIG_IGN); > > > > seems to have changed. The moment I remove above's line from the > > code, the program works. There is no difference when the programs > > runs on machines prior mid November 2014. > > > Err, this is a bug, probably both in your program (user code must not > twiddle with SIGCANCEL) and in libc. The later, I believe, was fixed I did not know of this. I simply blocked all. As it worked when I tested it those days, I forgot about it. > in the HEAD r287300, which is not yet merged back to stable/10. The > libthr has a protection disallowing user code manipulating SIGCANCEL, > but due to the bug in libc signal(3) override the libthr measures. > > Apply the r287300 to your src/ and try your unchanged program with > updated libc. But yes, SIGTHR/SIGCANCEL in the program is bug. > I am just updating another machine. It might be already tomorrow when I will come back to you. Erich _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
