Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/05/21/20:51:35
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:21:19PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Corinna showed me that this was a problem in my autoload code rather
>>than a problem with winsock. That's comforting. I guess I've grown
>>too quick to judge Windows.
>>
>>I've checked in a fix and am regenerating a snapshot. The fix
>>consisted of deleting a few lines of code so that's always nice...
>>
>>Thanks for the test case. It helped a lot in tracking this problem
>>down.
>
>I still see the same symptom (ie. socket randomly returns "Operation
>not permitted" at application startup) with current CVS, but not with
>the original test case, and only on a dual CPU box :-(.
It's not usually helpful to see a "it doesn't work" a month after the
announcement of a fix. Call me absent minded but I don't even remember
what I did to supposedly fix this.
>About 30% of the time, socket returns the error above. I tried
>replacing the exec line in the shell script with:
>
>exec strace -o tracefile -b 1000000 socket_error.exe
>
>but then it doesn't fail. It also doesn't fail if socket_error.exe is
>launched directly from the bash prompt.
>
>I will keep trying to come up with a test case that I can actually study,
>but I was hoping someone might have an idea about how to catch it better
>or where to look.
Put a call to the debugger at the offending error message and look around.
>Is it possible that the autoload code needs to be made dual CPU safe?
No.
cgf
--
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 -