Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/12/29/11:55:26
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> This can be true. However, to do this effectively, one has to listen and
> learn as well. Simply restating a point you've made before, if it hasn't
> already been agreed to, does less to convince and more to polarize. If
> your points aren't agreed upon by the people you're trying to convince,
> it's up to you to take the feedback you're given and figure out how that
> affects your argument. If you discount the feedback, it doesn't matter
> whether you're on the right or wrong side of the argument. The fact that
> you don't address the points raised means that you've conceded that
> there's
> no way to reasonably convince the ones you're lobbying to take up your
> cause. If that's the case, then further discussion of the point(s) of
> contention is irrelevant and probably even counter-productive.
---
Thank you for the observation. I sometimes don't realize how others
may be perceiving the conversation. I tend to over-focus on specific
parts in some conversations and not address issues that seem
tangential or not related.
> Linda, I think we've reach this point here, unless you're willing to try
> to understand why "fork()" is important to Cygwin.
---
I wasn't aware that anyone thought I was trying to change fork.
I'm not suggesting this.
> No one on this list
> is going to be willing to break "fork()" just to make the experience
> of using "setup.exe" a little easier on XP and later O/Ss.
---
The code for "fork" is part of the cygwin1.dll. Changes needed to
make setup work are only part of setup. No changes to
cygwin's internals are needed.
I saw a msg. about deleting runtime libraries from a running
process like "bash". I believe this was meant to show that cygwin
simulates POSIX correctness in fork by manually copying and
reloading DLL's from the pre-forked process to the post-fork process's
address space. It does this by reloading DLL's from their
original filenames at the time of fork. This suffers from the
"race-condition" that if the original DLL's change (or in this
case, are updated), then the "post-forked" copy of the program
would not be a POSIX correct copy of the original.
In other words, if someone renames and moves a new DLL into
place during setup, while a program (ex. bash) is running,
then, on fork() cygwin may, _incorrectly_, duplicate the
new address space. This would cause a technical violation
of the POSIX requirement that the address space be duplicated.
Am I misunderstanding this?
It comes down to a previously raised point that many (most?)
engineers cannot (or will not) make a trade-off between what is
technically correct and doing what user's want. In this case the
choice is between a) POSIX correctness -- where processes running
before setup would continue to use old libraries after an update
or b), updating the libraries outside of POSIX as the user is
requesting via setup.
If POSIX correctness was always the best possible solution
we wouldn't see so many Gnu utilities with non-POSIX
behaviors -- like "bash". The default is to allow _extended_
functionality unless "POSIX_CORRECT" is set in the environment
(or "--posix" is specified on the command line). If this is
the only issue, the couldn't setup do likewise?
Am I to understand that this is the only issue preventing
acceptance?
L
--
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 -