From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Dec  4 11: 9:27 2000
From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec  4 11:09:24 2000
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E2837B400
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon,  4 Dec 2000 11:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from eischen@localhost)
	by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id OAA19176;
	Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:05:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:05:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: ACE wrappers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012050018310.64731-100000@iclub.nsu.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001204140139.18008A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Max Khon wrote:
> hi, there!
> 
> Is there anyone using ACE wrappers? 
> We are using -stable and before 4.2-RELEASE everything was fine
> (on systems running 4.2-BETA before libc_r fixes/improvements)
> On -stable systems cvsupped yesterday a lot of ACE tests fail
> with signal 11 (we are using ACE wrappers 5.1.9). Is there anyone
> experiencing the same problems?

I used some relatively recent version of ACE to test these
thread changes under -current.  All the ACE tests, with the
exception of those testing process mutexes (ACE uses SYSV
semaphores for these), pass.

-- 
Dan Eischen


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message