[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       coreutils
Subject:    Re: [coreutils] [PATCH] Cater for extra strace output when building 32-on-64.
From:       "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv () altlinux ! org>
Date:       2010-11-30 18:09:32
Message-ID: 20101130180932.GA6029 () altlinux ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 02:53:29PM +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
[...]
> --- syscall.c.orig      2010-11-01 14:46:41.292576453 +0000
> +++ syscall.c   2010-11-01 14:47:10.164576378 +0000
> @@ -953,7 +953,7 @@
> 
>                 call = ptrace(PTRACE_PEEKTEXT, pid, (char *)rip, (char *)0);
>                 if (errno)
> -                       printf("ptrace_peektext failed: %s\n",
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "ptrace_peektext failed: %s\n",
>                                         strerror(errno));
>                 switch (call & 0xffff) {
>                         /* x86-64: syscall = 0x0f 0x05 */

Yes, this is definitely a bug, thank you.

> @@ -972,7 +972,7 @@
>                 if (currpers != current_personality) {
>                         static const char *const names[] = {"64 bit", "32 bit"};
>                         set_personality(currpers);
> -                       printf("[ Process PID=%d runs in %s mode. ]\n",
> +                       fprintf(stderr, "[ Process PID=%d runs in %s mode. ]\n",
>                                         pid, names[current_personality]);
>                 }
>         }

I'm not quite sure whether this message should go to stdout or stderr.
If it is a useful output, then it is the first case.  If it is just a
diagnostics, then it is the second case.

The message in its current form was introduced along with personality
switching support more than eight years ago.
I wonder is there any script that relies on the current behaviour.


-- 
ldv

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]