From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 23 02:27:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234ED16A403 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:27:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from eastrmmtao03.cox.net (eastrmmtao03.cox.net [68.230.240.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796D643D5D for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:27:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061023022754.OVVA23863.eastrmmtao03.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net>; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:27:54 -0400 Received: from mezz.mezzweb.com ([24.255.149.218]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id deTU1V00P4iy4EG0000000 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:27:28 -0400 To: "Kris Kennaway" From: "Jeremy Messenger" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1161567368.30822.31.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20061023020119.GA30219@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:28:27 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20061023020119.GA30219@xor.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.02 (Linux) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Do anyone has any problem with sem_open() crash? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:27:54 -0000 On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:01:19 -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 08:48:20PM -0500, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > >> I guess I am safe then as I can ignore these cores.. Thanks! Isn't >> kernel >> supposed to be avoid the crash? I don't see any of crash before I >> upgraded >> to last night of RELENG_6. > > It's not a crash, it's a configure script testing whether the syscall > exists, and the the test program gets the signal 12 to tell it that it > doesn't. This is expected behaviour. Ok, thanks for explain. Cheers, Mezz > Kris -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - multimedia@FreeBSD.org