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:to:subject:from:date:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=YKJ0U9GgkBs7C7D6icd7je8LUHhwv
	LchI31NriSvLgdZTRZQIToYQkffw9JsQERwflwyWTISmoJ2uOLkCdnMOtNAM9y1X
	YRsQImXiJitSiGwz53rX+EqcKy/vFEOke0kYuiu0TSUweOYrOWqEpjAgPly6SwnV
	0qTt2vq3PWoHUY=
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:to:subject:from:date:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type; s=default; bh=/5WQelCmnvpgNbmomnXdJH7H618=; b=FPu
	8K65SjUyYNgRTcWbSdK81HXByA2xQ02jJrxjUCq7NI67dQy1lIlC8igQHGxHUyFH
	bazwFyhXZsXb7KowY/YgvUWCfqivYza2gJw4IvREvcwqHzP2pAN+2O0RTdWPUKYW
	ng744z3DyTY5apbid++iSe7Z3r7YIogAEls/50BY=
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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	strace and sigprocmask
From:	ht AT inf DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Date:	Fri, 09 May 2014 13:55:51 +0100
Message-ID:	<f5bzjir5cx4.fsf@troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk>
User-Agent:	Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) XEmacs/21.5-b33 (linux)
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Edinburgh-Scanned:	at treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Running on Windows 8.1, with 32-bit Cygwin v1.7.29.

I've taken straces of a problematic area of xemacs, tidied them, and
am trying to locate significant differences.

I'm seeing something I don't understand, which isn't causing a crash
so probably isn't significant, but I'd like to understand it better.

strace 1 has:
 [main] PID1  sigprocmask:  0   =   sigprocmask(2647444,   0xNULL, 0xNULL)
where strace 2 has:
 [main] PID1  sigprocmask:  0   =   sigprocmask(2649272,   0xNULL, 0xADDR)

Similar lines appear frequently in both straces.

Either I don't understand strace output, or this is bizarre -- the
first arg to sigprocmask should always be 0, 1 or 2, right?

I'd welcome any help in understanding how I should be reading this,
and more generally, how I could have found the answer to my question
myself.

Thanks,

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht AT inf DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

--
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 -