From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4665 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2001 15:20:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 4510 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2001 15:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO starship.python.net) (63.102.49.32) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2001 15:19:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 1155 invoked by uid 1201); 10 Dec 2001 15:19:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Dec 2001 15:19:10 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:23:00 -0000 From: Michael Hudson To: Jason Tishler cc: Cygwin , Subject: Re: dll_list::load_after_fork() blues (was Re: [ python-Bugs-489709 ] Building Fails ...) In-Reply-To: <20011210074629.B2148@dothill.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00540.txt.bz2 On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jason Tishler wrote: > Unfortunately, when I run the complete Python regression test, I still > get the same three test failures as reported by Michael without rebasing: > > test_popen2 > test_pty > test_socket > > When I run these tests individually (i.e., not part of the complete test > suite), then they pass. Hence, the rebasing appears not to completely > solve this problem. FWIW, and I don't know how much that is, all tests pass if I link _socket statically. Oh, and this is building without threads, it seems. I'll do a new build with threads and see if anything changes, but I doubt it. So what is it that dynamically loading _socket does that screws fork()? Cheers, M. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/