Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:34:31 +0000 From: Paul Floyd <paulf2718@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with FreeBSD-15.0-CURRENT-amd64-20241003 Message-ID: <62745a68-9ed7-4f6f-bd6f-0ba3e10629c3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ZwZD6rP1eQ2ehllX@kib.kiev.ua> References: <7bdb3c71-8a36-444e-8b1d-9c4f789fe638@gmail.com> <ZwYrWwd5XU_TRbEw@kib.kiev.ua> <CALUVJ=AhS1NA_4JNEC-c2hMjBMHhNZh0VzLjdvCVDh5siDrriw@mail.gmail.com> <ZwZD6rP1eQ2ehllX@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09-10-24 08:50, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Perhaps you can check for the presence of the symbol exit@FBSD_1.0 in the > backtrace to determine the situation. We don't read .gnu.version and the version number hasn't changed as far as I can see. I can check osreldate to get an idea of the version. However this looks like it is going to be a lot more difficult. I need to be able to tell apart abnormal termination (where no locks are to be expected) and normal termination (one lock expected). If it's not possible/too difficult to work out how mnay locks should be allowed on exit another option will be to try to fiddle around with what happens during a call to exit(). That would mean something like ignoring the lock count when called from exit(). And the last resort will be to just turn this check off. A+ Paul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62745a68-9ed7-4f6f-bd6f-0ba3e10629c3>