On 03.11.2016 15:24, Christos Zoulas wrote: > In article <19801.1478175371%andromeda.noi.kre.to@localhost>, > Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote: >> >> Which is actually correct? (That is, which makes more sense, if it is >> not actually specified somewhere.) >> >> Please make the tests test correct behaviour, not just what NetBSD happens >> to do today. If NetBSD is doing something that is not correct, file a PR >> and use atf_expect_fail() referencing the PR so it can get fixed, someday. >> >> Of course, it is also possible that the linux behaviour is the one that's >> wrong. >> >> | This code covers (uncovers issues?) WIFCONTINUED() and is the last planned >> | test in the ptraceme category. >> >> It would be kind of nice to have some (similar) tests that use waitid() >> (or wait6()) instead of waitpid() given that waitid() is the more modern >> (and more flexible) interface. > > Well, having both WIFSTOPPED and WIFCONTINUED set does not make a lot of sense. > It would seem that the right behavior is that WIFCONTINUED should be set > and WIFSTOPPED not set after PT_CONTINUE (unless the child stopped again). > > Anyway, for FreeBSD WIFSTOPPED is set and WIFCONTINUED is not, so my guess > is that the child is stopped again and we are wrong somewhere forgetting > to clear the continued flag. > > christos > I will file a bug for it assuming that Linux (and apparently FreeBSD) is correct here and adjust it in the test-case. For now I'm focusing on functional tests, which are equivalent to FreeBSD capabilities. This is why I will reschedule combination of wait(2) usage functions for later and move to on other ptrace(2) use-cases. I will replace sys_errlist(3) with strerror(3).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature