delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/06/08/22:04:46

X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:03:58 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin non-posix problems
Message-ID: <20060609020358.GA5641@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4485E5F3 DOT 7010700 AT tlinx DOT org> <20060607062254 DOT GB2592 AT efn DOT org> <4488B498 DOT 4030306 AT tlinx DOT org> <45640 DOT 38 DOT 112 DOT 225 DOT 178 DOT 1149811889 DOT squirrel AT 38 DOT 112 DOT 225 DOT 178>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <45640.38.112.225.178.1149811889.squirrel@38.112.225.178>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:11:29PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>>> Can he or you reduce the problem to a non-File::BOM dependent test
>>> script
>> What part of the perl module File::BOM should I throw out before
>> it's no longer File::BOM?  It's just perl code.
>>
>> It's freely downloadable through CPAN, so I can't make it too
>> much more publicly available than that.
>
>The point would be to reduce the amount of code that might need
>to be inspected to find the underlying problem.  Nothing to do
>with publicly available.
>
>> But FWIW, the File::BOM code isn't the actual problem.  It's
>> the authors test routine that he decided to be "fancy" with,
>> and use a child process to send strings via a "FIFO" to the
>> test harness process.
>>
>> It isn't desirable to modify "cygwin-only-failing" Perl modules
>> to work around problems than only happen under cygwin.  Certainly
>> you can see how that is "burying one's head under the sand".  Suppose
>> various parts of CPAN are rewritten to steer around bugs in Cygwin.
>> Does that make the underlying problems problems in Cygwin go away?
>> Does that make cygwin more stable or more compatible with other
>> Posix platforms?
>>
>> In my mind it eliminates test cases that are perfectly uncovering
>> Cygwin incompatibilities and deficiencies.
>
>I agree with all of the above and wasn't trying to suggest modifying
>the tests.

Indeed, this is standard operating procedure for debugging problems.

>> Certainly, we can agree, that a process under cygwin should not
>> normally hang and be unresponsive to cygwin "kill -9" signals?
>
>/bin/kill -f worked for me.

That would suggest that File::BOM is using blocking windows calls
directly somehow.  Gee, if only there was some way to narrow this down.

I know! It must be because fork doesn't work on a multi-threaded dual
core processor!

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 -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019