X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=LbE1ko0kNSOXV4yTx8UIZes/f/XOfRelwZGyXfusDzO
	1E5iXhzwMXGeCg12LN2k3pcrPssTHLPR3cw8fL8OxJZMNfFewd8egCVYrxatAM8e
	CsYEw6CxAI1qJHOdvwKTFuQvNyP8NW4UYlC4ST6Q2mKFn244DTkRrPXsK4cB4sdc
	=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=f9VS3yezrW8RTIJ+DVGKGinAs1Y=; b=A0RIvYRqjf8DK/+/g
	k3/3lBGo3GTAqZRDjp6Fu49YYpzOhjpfFUD+jZmb6H2LoJgmvBWG0R7rzEJOBxqo
	8YwHKCZaFf658EDC/qLsGK69QxcuSljaoWmL9bnhThwznEKmAvfRSwfG4XJEkdX5
	bE/m6aEDQgs7uCfSWw8GVAzfbk=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.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
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Message-ID:	<51F91E02.2080705@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:24:02 -0400
From:	Charles Wilson <cygwin AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin 32bit vs 64bit difference: SIGQUIT
References:	<51F90C4C DOT 5040105 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <20130731141111 DOT GB4166 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20130731141111.GB4166@calimero.vinschen.de>

On 7/31/2013 10:11 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 31 09:08, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> FAIL: t/tap-signal.tap 5 - TAP driver catch test termination by
>> signal SIGQUIT
>
> Hmm.
>
>    $ cat
>
> In another shell:
>
>    $ ps
> 	PID    PPID    PGID     WINPID   TTY     UID    STIME COMMAND
> 	568    2276     568       2952  pty0    11001 16:08:59 /usr/bin/tcsh
>         1696    1012    1696       1652  pty1    11001 16:09:08 /usr/bin/ps
>         1012    1112    1012       2704  pty1    11001 16:09:05 /usr/bin/tcsh
>    I    2324     568    2324        816  pty0    11001 16:09:02 /usr/bin/cat
>         1112       1    1112       1112  ?       11001 16:09:05 /usr/bin/mintty
>         2276       1    2276       2276  ?       11001 16:08:59 /usr/bin/mintty
>    $ kill -QUIT 2324
>
> In the first shell:
>
>    Quit (core dumped)
>    $
>
>> .... which doesn't really tell you much without the rest of the test
>> driver machinery, but I include it for completeness.
>>
>> The point of this post is the following question: is there a known
>> difference in the signal handling code between cygwin32 and cygwin64
>> that could explain why I see different behavior with respect to
>> SIGQUIT?
>
> No.  STC?

I'll try to extract one from the test suite, but I don't think I'll hold 
up a release waiting for the resolution (and it may be a while before I 
can construct the STC; getting ready for some travel soon...)

--
Chuck



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -