From mrsam@courier-mta.com Thu Jul 4 01:09:00 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: leitner-fefe-leitner@fefe.de Received: (qmail 10915 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2002 23:09:00 -0000 Received: from mail.courier-mta.com (66.92.103.29) by fefe.de with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 3 Jul 2002 23:09:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (IDENT: uid 502) by ny.email-scan.com with esmtp; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 19:08:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:08:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Varshavchik X-X-Sender: geo@ny.email-scan.com Reply-To: mrsam@courier-mta.com To: Felix von Leitner Subject: Re: courier configure bug (waitlib) In-Reply-To: <20020703225930.GA10785@codeblau.de> Message-ID: X-No-Archive: Yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 1010 On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Felix von Leitner wrote: > Thus spake Sam Varshavchik (mrsam@courier-mta.com): > > It is supposed to check whether wait() or wait3() should be used in > > response to a SIGCHLD. > > Both are there and both work. No. > > It is dietlibc's responsibility to remain compatible with glibc, and not > > the other way around. And, of course, if you use the broken dietlibc > > configuration with glibc, it's not going to work. What the hell did you > > expect? > > Excuse me? Did you even look at the strace? Your test program has a > race condition that would make even beginners blush in embarassment (and Please refrain from making comments like that until you actually know what you're talking about. > Now this is not what I expected. When people point me to bugs in my > software, I fix the bugs and am happy that I know people to find the > bugs for me, so I don't have to. For the future: do you care to be told > about other bugs in your software? Go away. -- Sam