https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
Christopher Head changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kdeb...@chead.ca
--
You are receiving this
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #14 from Daniel ---
Created attachment 109075
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=109075&action=edit
Patch with own replacement function for the provided test code
This patch is a diff of the provided test code and a new test code
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #13 from Daniel ---
Created attachment 109074
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=109074&action=edit
Try to add a replacement function of posix_spawnp to vg_preloaded.c
The patch is a diff of the current vg_preloaded.c git code.
It
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #12 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
(In reply to Daniel from comment #11)
> (In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #10)
> > What you might do is to write a replacement procedure for
> > posix_spawn/posis_spawnp, using the technique/code
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #11 from Daniel ---
(In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #10)
> What you might do is to write a replacement procedure for
> posix_spawn/posis_spawnp, using the technique/code of glibc 2.24.
Good suggestion! I'm not familiar with th
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #10 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
(In reply to Daniel from comment #9)
> Do you have any idea if this will/can be fixed?
Nobody seems to work on this for the moment, so time to fix is unknown.
It looks like the solaris specific code should/co
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #9 from Daniel ---
Do you have any idea if this will/can be fixed?
Or do I have any possibility to work around this issue in my code?
Greetings,
Daniel
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
Ivo Raisr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iv...@ivosh.net
--- Comment #8 from Ivo Raisr ---
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
Philippe Waroquiers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||philippe.waroquiers@skynet.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #5)
> We already detect CLONE_VFORK|CLONE_VM as a special case and deliberately
> drop CLONE_VM because I imagine anything else would be a disaster as
> valgrind's shadow memory
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes ---
We already detect CLONE_VFORK|CLONE_VM as a special case and deliberately drop
CLONE_VM because I imagine anything else would be a disaster as valgrind's
shadow memory etc would be shared.
The comments in the source e
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
I wonder if we can also rely on the CLONE_VFORK mechanism.
So if we see a clone with CLONE_VFORK | CLONE_VM we don't drop the CLONE_VM,
but do freeze all other threads till we see the exec/exit syscall.
Since till
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@klomp.org
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaar
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732
--- Comment #1 from Daniel ---
Edit: we're compiling with GCC 7.1.0, no idea if this makes any difference.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
15 matches
Mail list logo
