Re: xsrc/50093 (7.0_RC1 Xorg server gets SIGSEGV on exit)

[coypu%SDF.ORG@localhost]

The following reply was made to PR xsrc/50093; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: coypu%SDF.ORG@localhost
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost
Subject: Re: xsrc/50093 (7.0_RC1 Xorg server gets SIGSEGV on exit)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:43:18 +0000

 On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:20:01AM +0000, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
 >  
 >  By which change? (I don't use -current)
 >  
 >  
 
 Curious if any fix was indirectly made to any supported branch, -7-0 is ok too.
 
 I wanted to explain why he (and myself) often ask if a bug was fixed despite
 not making a related commit, even though it's somewhat rude.
 
 Personally, I like going over the list of open bugs,which includes many older
 ones. To start dealing with a bug, I read the description, decide I feel brave
 enough to deal with it, set up an environment to reproduce it, thoroughly read
 the description to reproduce, etc.
 
 All of this takes some mental effort for every bug, and if a lot of them
 turned out to be irrelevant once I test them out (maybe someone fixed them
 and did not see that there is an open bug), I'll be reluctant to look at old
 bugs again. This is why I like indicators that a bug still exists and closing
 old bugs that are no longer relevant.
 
 Specifically for this bug:
 dholland was seeing similar problems, and looked at open bugs for suggestions.
 For example, kern/49838 contained the indication that running 'teapot' of
 mesademos triggers his exact issue, and that is a short & easy to run program.
 
 It also suggested something to do with threads, which helped find that gallium
 should be linked with libpthread, but was not. fix not committed yet, as it's
 still in progress - the bug is not entirely resolved.
 
 this is another open bug that sounds similar to the remaining issue in 49838,
 which has xorg segfaults, so that is how we ended up here. Is this the same bug?
 
 My guess it was fixed before 7.0 release, as there would be many more reports 
 if it still occurred. I've also used VESA myself (only on real hardware though)
 and do not recall a similar issue.
 
 If it is still relevant, it is the same as the bug he encountered, and your
 report contains your investigation which can be useful.
 
 Sorry about the noise, it seems like relations are a bit tense and they shouldn't
 be, the only motivation is to fix bugs, not artificially lower open PR numbers.