From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65E7BC433EF for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723CE3C9363 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:41:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D09A3C0711 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:41:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF5E1400C47 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:41:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AAA1F37D for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:41:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1648723297; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sH763GBQAJp27LyCJ9Cr1ngHofhlDthOd+/dS+D2pEI=; b=DfbxAXqwm0J3fUOKqYIpKrLlWkUtaFGZjyqHf0J+YvTQ9orZcYQchGoAjFETgRukMiCppA YwWnAgu7OhOxO0k/nh/nBUij7vHr7N9UneVfKXkir/pZ/Fz3qXDPMQt9XDkf1McieAkdOa pVU32pgs10lhiTN0Aaf3SVP5msvKfXs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1648723297; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sH763GBQAJp27LyCJ9Cr1ngHofhlDthOd+/dS+D2pEI=; b=KbypogModDmYtze/W+ZeKHTYrJH7U8jF8prMGezqiW8gvTFo/30Ql9/55+sbILaNkJNy3F UywQxDbaOA78BbAg== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.24.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A95CAA3B8A; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:41:37 +0000 (UTC) References: <20220310105533.3012-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <87ee2vclsf.fsf@suse.de> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Martin Doucha Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:07:43 +0100 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <8735iyl7z8.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/waitid10: Fix on ARM, PPC and possibly others X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: rpalethorpe@suse.de Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hello, Martin Doucha writes: > On 21. 03. 22 16:48, Richard Palethorpe wrote: >> I'm wondering if we should branch on the architecture. If it's x86[_64] >> then we only do divide by zero as it's reasonable to think that if the >> signal is not raised then this is a bug. > > It's more likely to be a hardware bug/missing feature though. Do we > really care? I'd argue that removing the division altogether and just > calling raise(SIGFPE) in the child process is all we need in this > particular test. I suppose it depends on if there is a substantial difference in how the signal is raised between div by zero and raise. I guess there is some configuration to trap the faulting instruction and raise a signal. I don't have a strong opinion as, by definintion, testing undefined behaviour has uncertain results. -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp