From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19123 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 22:01:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 19113 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2011 22:01:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_CG X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f43.google.com) (209.85.214.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:01:23 +0000 Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so1489930bkb.2 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:01:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.128.15 with SMTP id hc15mr22580633bkc.110.1321480881591; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:01:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.195] (93-33-101-139.ip44.fastwebnet.it. [93.33.101.139]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g25sm21843250fae.16.2011.11.16.14.01.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:01:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EC432AC.5010506@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:01:00 -0000 From: marco atzeri User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS References: <4EC12860.3050507@gmail.com> <20111114153109.GA21295@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4EC13D23.8040705@gmail.com> <20111114171105.GA22991@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4EC27F70.60102@gmail.com> <20111115192202.GB18893@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20111116191431.GA7620@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20111116191431.GA7620@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00275.txt.bz2 On 11/16/2011 8:14 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:04:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >>> On 11/14/2011 6:11 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> >>>> FYI, the last thing any developer wants to hear after a major code >>>> change is a generic "It's broke" report with no details and no way to >>>> duplicate the problem. A stack trace from a home-grown version of >>>> cygwin1.dll is not a detail. It's meaningless unless the addresses are >>>> decoded. >>> >>> Ok, >>> rewinding to step 1 >>> >>> I simplified the test case to a short one, involving just 1 make call, >>> using your snapshot >> >> Amazingly short. Thanks very much! I can duplicate this and will fix >> it. > > I've made some changes and can no longer duplicate the problem from your > test case. If you can confirm that the latest snapshot works for you I > would appreciate it. > > As it turns out, this was a change I was planning on making "at some > point in the future". The future, apparently, is now. > > cgf > CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 1.7.10s(0.255/5/3) 20111116 04:41:29 i686 Cygwin passed my crash test: a full build of octave binary from scratch plus the make check. Regards Marco -- 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