naruse (Yui NARUSE) wrote: > Following patch to NetBSD fixes this issue. > ... [...] I've tested the patch and can no more reproduce the problem. Thanks!rudolf (r stu3)
I am not sure if the following information are relevant, but I want you to have a complete picture. I've tried to bring this issue on NetBSD maillist and I've got the following reply (http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2012/04...rudolf (r stu3)
kosaki (Motohiro KOSAKI) wrote: > I think this is a kind of documentation issue. If you use C, you can't use both thread and fork. It's obvious. > ... Yes, I agree it will help if the documentation will mention that. But the sole exist...rudolf (r stu3)
mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote: > rudolf (r stu3) wrote: > ... Thanks, i was not aware of that. I'll respect that. > FYI, we have Kernel#spawn already. I didn't know that, thanks.rudolf (r stu3)
Thanks for the comment. I am sorry, but I don't understand the sentence "NetBSD is not supported". I can see NetBSD-related statements in configure.in, so that means, that the build infrastructure has support for NetBSD (and indeed, it b...rudolf (r stu3)
When running ruby (ruby-lang.org) test suite, I am able to provoke a segfault using a test from bootstraptest/test_thread.rb: begin Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join pid, status = Process.wait2 $result = status.success? ? :...rudolf (r stu3)
rudolf (r stu3)03:24 AM Ruby Bug #6341: SIGSEGV: Thread.new { fork { GC.start } }.join