From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25043 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2007 15:22:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 24993 invoked by uid 48); 5 Apr 2007 15:22:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070405152241.24992.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "cagney at redhat dot com" To: frysk-bugzilla@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20061204180758.3639.cmoller@redhat.com> References: <20061204180758.3639.cmoller@redhat.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug general/3639] fc6: testTerminateKillKILL(frysk.proc.TestTaskTerminateObserver) X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact frysk-bugzilla-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-bugzilla-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From cagney at redhat dot com 2007-04-05 16:22 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > If, in Wait.cxx:processStatus(), status == 9, (KILL), WIFSIGNALED (status) is > true rather than WIFSTOPPED (status), so none of the foregoing happens, causing > the test to fail. What I don't know is if the process described above is in > fact what the programmer who wrote it intended and the test exercises conditions > that weren't meant to be exercised, or if the process described is flawed or > incomplete. The programmer, me, didn't know that the "terminating" event was not guarenteed when the process was killed using -9. Just the testcase needs to be adjusted to be more flexable. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3639 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.