Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- From: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov-nsp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:03:40 -0800
Denes Molnar <molnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> My other guess is that it is something with the threads. For one, I
> keep getting "defunct" processes, even when the main executable is
> still running. According to the strace logs, the front-end would start
> sending "Y" through the pipe to the kernel but that fails with "broken
> pipe" (EPIPE) - I guess because by then the other process is dead. It
> would be useful to try a libc-2.3 but kernel-2.4 system as a baseline.
The 'strace -f' doesn't work nicely with LinuxThreads.
I have not analyzed this in detail, but I believe this is because
strace does 'waitpid()' in a loop, and sometimes collects clone()d
processes that the thread_manager thread itself is expecting
to collect.
However, this shouldn't be the case for NPTL (you have been tracing
with NPTL, right?)
> ** Paul, which Fedora version do you have? **
I have everything :)
Well, I have FC2 and FC4 readily available (booted up).
Cheers,
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.
.
- References:
- glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- From: Denes Molnar
- Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- From: Roger Leigh
- Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- From: Paul Pluzhnikov
- Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- From: Roger Leigh
- Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- From: Paul Pluzhnikov
- Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- From: Denes Molnar
- glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- Prev by Date: Re: x.org dropped imake, now what is the best way to convert existing Imakefile so it can be used with automake et all?
- Previous by thread: Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- Next by thread: Re: glibc 2.2 vs 2.3 issue back again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|