> That depends upon the signal. If we got SIGCHLD or SIGWINCH, the call to read
> probably
> gets EINTR, but the signal is ignored unless explicitly handled.
ignored signals do not cause EINTR no.
And I don't think either gcc.c nor toplev.c can get SIGCHLD at this point.
-Andi
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:56:32 +0200
Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I suppose we might get interrupted before anything is read and
> > read can return with -1 (I suppose partial reads are quite unlikely
> > though)? Thus, don't we need the usual EINTR loop?
>
> When we get interrupted gcc will die. I don'
> I suppose we might get interrupted before anything is read and
> read can return with -1 (I suppose partial reads are quite unlikely
> though)? Thus, don't we need the usual EINTR loop?
When we get interrupted gcc will die. I don't think gcc handles any
asynchronous signals, right?
-Andi
--
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> When available use /dev/urandom to get the random seem. This will lower the
> probability
> of collisions.
>
> On other systems it will fallback to the old methods.
>
> Passes bootstrap + testsuite on x86_64. Ok?
>
> gcc/:
From: Andi Kleen
When available use /dev/urandom to get the random seem. This will lower the
probability
of collisions.
On other systems it will fallback to the old methods.
Passes bootstrap + testsuite on x86_64. Ok?
gcc/:
* 2011-09-26 Andi Kleen
* toplev.c (init_local_tick): Tr
