Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/04/23/21:49:51
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 12:03:57AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
>>At 11:29 PM 4/22/2003 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>>A few debugging possibilities spring to mind here.
>>>
>>>Try running it under strace with a very large buffer size in (the -b
>>>option). Attach to the hung process in strace or gdb.
>>>
>>>Does it also have problems with cygwin snapshots? If not, then we need
>>>to see how you've configured your version of cygwin, what version of gcc
>>>you use, etc.
>>>
>>>If this is just a cvs thing (and that isn't really clear) then the old
>>>popular binary search through cvs might be useful to find out what
>>>change caused the problem.
>>>
>>>Also, send cygcheck output (as an attachment). I suspect that you may
>>>be using CYGWIN=tty but we don't know what your setup is.
>>
>>I had sent a cygcheck output immediately after my initial report.
>>CYGWIN is unset.
>>
>>Contrary to Rolf I have never seen a hung process in this context.
> It just occurred to me that this is probably the old bash "reuse the
> pid" problem. Bash is confused when pid numbers are reused in quick
> succession, which can be the case on Windows. I thought that Corinna
> had turned on something in bash to work around this problem. I wonder
> if it is no longer on in recent versions of bash or if the workaround
> doesn't work.
>
> You can prove if this is the error or not by defining SLOW_PID_REUSE
> when compiling fork.cc.
That seems to have fixed the problem. I tried 4950 commands, all of
them worked (approx 1% failed before). I will continue to use this
build for a couple of days of 'real' work, and see if this problem stays
away.
-Rolf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -