From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27110 invoked by alias); 9 May 2014 14:31:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 27097 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2014 14:31:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org (HELO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org) (204.13.248.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 May 2014 14:31:31 +0000 Received: from pool-98-110-183-166.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([98.110.183.166] helo=cgf.cx) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Wilpg-000NtA-Kn for cygwin@cygwin.com; Fri, 09 May 2014 14:31:28 +0000 Received: from ednor (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with SMTP id B0F58600D0 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 10:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 09 May 2014 10:31:26 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19fKNSsLmrxARo5CdiFjBlU Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 14:31:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: strace and sigprocmask Message-ID: <20140509143126.GA7174@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:55:51PM +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: >Running on Windows 8.1, with 32-bit Cygwin v1.7.29. > >I've taken straces of a problematic area of xemacs, tidied them, and >am trying to locate significant differences. > >I'm seeing something I don't understand, which isn't causing a crash >so probably isn't significant, but I'd like to understand it better. > >strace 1 has: > [main] PID1 sigprocmask: 0 = sigprocmask(2647444, 0xNULL, 0xNULL) >where strace 2 has: > [main] PID1 sigprocmask: 0 = sigprocmask(2649272, 0xNULL, 0xADDR) > >Similar lines appear frequently in both straces. > >Either I don't understand strace output, or this is bizarre -- the >first arg to sigprocmask should always be 0, 1 or 2, right? > >I'd welcome any help in understanding how I should be reading this, >and more generally, how I could have found the answer to my question >myself. This is a a bug (now fixed) in the source. The first argument to sigprocmask was not being sent to the strace printf, pushing all of the arguments left. As to how you could have found the answer, it's the standard answer for free software projects - look at the source. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple