Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:44:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, NAKAJI Hiroyuki <nakaji@boggy.acest.tutrp.tut.ac.jp>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Post-KSE disaster with libc_r Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10207012034570.981-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207011659510.91887-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > I also made changes to uthread_sigpending.c and uthread_sigsuspend.c > > 3 days ago (lib/libc_r/uthread/...). You can try reverting those > > changes and go back to revisions 1.18 and 1.11 respectively. > > It seems that you have been exhonorated.. > I guess this means that teh KSE changes are in some way contaminating the > build of libc_r.. but what? and how? I'm not sure. I would be interested in seeing any warnings from building new libc_r. The only places I can think of are the queues (with the QMD debug defined, that would definitely cause problems), but that seems to have been ruled out also when queue.h was reverted. Did USRSTACK or SIGSTKSZ get changed somehow? Someone can also try going into lib/libc_r/test and running the tests in there, to see if even simple threaded programs are borken or not. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10207012034570.981-100000>