This relies on signal.h being included by wait.h. Would it be better to include it explicitly? -----Original Message----- From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Wood Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:30 AM To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [PATCH i-g-t] lib/tests: explicitly raise SIGSEGV Dereferencing a NULL pointer is undefined behaviour and may not always result in a segmentation fault. Explicitly raise the SIGSEGV signal to test handling of this signal. Signed-off-by: Thomas Wood <thomas.wood@xxxxxxxxx> --- lib/tests/igt_segfault.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/tests/igt_segfault.c b/lib/tests/igt_segfault.c index b420b1a..bc7641d 100644 --- a/lib/tests/igt_segfault.c +++ b/lib/tests/igt_segfault.c @@ -57,11 +57,15 @@ bool runc; char test[] = "test"; char *argv_run[] = { test }; +static void crashme(void) +{ + raise(SIGSEGV); +} + static int do_fork(void) { int pid, status; int argc; - void (*crashme)(void) = NULL; switch (pid = fork()) { case -1: -- 1.9.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
