Bug#498485: why: calls cpulimit with wrong arguments
Mehdi Dogguy <Mehdi.Dogguy@pps.jussieu.fr> writes:
> Timo Juhani Lindfors a écrit :
>> Package: why
>> Version: 1.13-1
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> calldp.ml calls cpulimit with
>>
>
>>From 2.01 (according to changelog[1]), Why started using its own version
> of cpulimit (why-cpulimit) and doesn't depend anymore on cpulimit
> (debian package).
>
> Now Why uses only why-cpulimit.
> So the bug disappeared with Why 2.01.
>
> Try to get a newer version of Why !
Whoops, I made a typo: I have why version "2.13-1" and not "1.13-1"
and I definitely can still see the bug:
Steps to reproduce:
0) cat > Lesson1.java <<EOF
public class Lesson1 {
// jml2:
// requires a != null && (\forall int i; 0 < i && i < a.length; a[i-1] <= a[i]);
// krakatoa:
//@ requires a != null && (\forall integer i; 0 < i && i < a.length ==> a[i-1] <= a[i]);
public int f0(int[] a) {
return a[0];
}
}
EOF
1) strace -o s -s4096 -f gwhy Lesson1.java
2) click ergo in the GUI
Expected results:
2) gwhy runs ergo
Actual results:
2) ergo is not started, strace reveals
852 execve("/usr/bin/cpulimit", ["cpulimit", "10", "ergo", "/tmp/gwhy9f0a8a_why.why"], [/* 46 vars */] <unfinished ...>
...
852 write(2, "Error: You must specify a target process\n"..., 41) = 41
852 write(2, "Usage: cpulimit TARGET [OPTIONS...]\n"..., 36) = 36
852 write(2, " TARGET must be exactly one of these:\n"..., 40) = 40
852 write(2, " -p, --pid=N pid of the process\n"..., 44) = 44
852 write(2, " -e, --exe=FILE name of the executable program file\n"..., 61) = 61
852 write(2, " -P, --path=PATH absolute path name of the executable program file\n"..., 75) = 75
852 write(2, " OPTIONS\n"..., 11) = 11
852 write(2, " -l, --limit=N percentage of cpu allowed from 0 to 100 (mandatory)\n"..., 77) = 77
852 write(2, " -v, --verbose show control statistics\n"..., 49) = 49
852 write(2, " -z, --lazy exit if there is no suitable target process, or if it dies\n"..., 84) = 84
852 write(2, " -h, --help display this help and exit\n"..., 52) = 52
Please let me know if you are unable to reproduce this bug with 2.13-1.
best regards,
Timo Lindfors
Reply to: