[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#8230: closed (touch dumps core on solaris 10)

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#8230: closed (touch dumps core on solaris 10)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:57:02 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:56:39 +0100
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#8230: touch dumps core on solaris 10
has caused the GNU bug report #8230,
regarding touch dumps core on solaris 10
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

8230: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8230
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: touch dumps core on solaris 10 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:53:36 -0500 User-agent: Sup/git
Hi All,

Since 8.8, touch has dumped core on solaris 10 (built on solaris 9).
The command that triggers the core dump is a simple: touch somefile

This is seemingly related to the recommend patch cluster of Jan 10,
2011 as it runs just fine on older releases of solaris 10.

On affected boxes, the file is touched but in the subsequent dup2, it
goes into a loop until it dies.  I tried to attach truss output, but
the MTA at gnu.org rejected it twice.  The URL's below have both sparc
and i386 traces.


Please let me know if other inputs would be of use in debugging this.

I've taken a brief look but don't see anything immediately obvious.
I'm hoping to spend more time on it this evening.

Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#8230: touch dumps core on solaris 10 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:56:39 +0100
Ben Walton wrote:
>> Ben, can you confirm that touch from coreutils-8.7 did not have this
>> problem?  I'll wait for confirmation before pushing.
> I just built 8.7 (I skipped from 8.4 -> 8.8) with my build script and
> tested it.  It works correctly, so I'd say that yes, the problem was
> introduced in 8.8.  This was on sparc, I didn't make the verification
> on i386, but I will if you'd like.

Thanks for confirming.  That should be enough.
I've pushed that change to coreutils, and am marking this issue as closed.

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]