Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/03/18/15:44:34
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> Did you try running bash non-interactively with a long-running command,
> e.g., 'bash -c "sleep 20"'? Does that work?
It doesn't return an error, but it doesn't take any more or less time to return
than bash -c "sleep 1" or bash -c "sleep 150"
> Does 'bash --norc -i' work?
It doesn't do anything different. I put an "echo" into my .bashrc, so I can
tell whether it's being sourced or not, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
Whether it is or not, bash still exits.
> Also, if vim works, try adding the following to your .bashrc:
> set -o ignoreeof
> to eliminate the possibility of stray EOFs being sent to bash...
No luck there.
> If all else fails, there's always strace, but it will involve some effort
> on your part to examine it and try to figure out why bash exits.
I have a strace from my coworker's machine, where bash still works.
Unfortunately, they both seem to end, at least, the same way:
255 166507 [main] bash 2872 readv: readv (0, 0x22E6C0, 1) blocking, sigcatchers 1
52 166559 [main] bash 2872 readv: no need to call ready_for_read
So if there's a problem, it comes earlier.
I'm going to try reinstalling and seeing if that works.
--Aaron V. Humphrey
Kakari Systems, Ltd.
--
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 -