|
Message-ID: <CADFzTtd4858NW4asC3Vd1LFXya0zhOio53kRWWsmBsGganOjhQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:07:21 -0800 From: Rasmus Andersson <rasmus@...ion.se> To: Zach van Rijn <me@...io> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: waitpid (wait4) on Linux 5 returns invalid values Zach I'm glad I was able to help! No trouble at all. Thank you all for your work on musl & accompanying tools :-) On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 3:01 PM Zach van Rijn <me@...io> wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 14:02 -0800, Rasmus Andersson wrote: > > The program compiles correctly with > > https://more.musl.cc/9/x86_64-linux-musl/x86_64-linux-musl-native.tgz > > (The GCC 9 version) Perhaps an issue with GCC 10? > > Rasmus, thank you for reporting this issue. > > > Using your reproducer I'm able to observe the following: > > (1) GCC 10 as-published on musl.cc : BUG > waitpid returned -10, wstat=0, errno=0 (No error information) > > (2) GCC 10 without this patch [1] : OK > waitpid returned -1, wstat=0, errno=10 (No child process) > > which matches your GCC 9 (20200828) observation. > > > This patch was applied to musl.cc as part of a series to add > experimental riscv32 support in September 2020, but was applied > universally and not strictly riscv32 targets. > > The patch in question was /not/ applied to the GCC 9 binaries as > they were last updated in August of 2020, nor to earlier 10 ones. > > I am updating the build infrastructure to avoid contamination of > "supported" targets by experimental patches such as this one. > > New (fixed and newer GCC) toolchains will be published as soon as > they finish building (~24 hours). I will ping you off-list. > > Additional tests (not simply spot-checks) will be implemented for > future releases. > > > Sorry for the inconvenience. > > > [1]: https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2020/09/03/14 >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.