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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=SEpEFiB3gUaqK2w24TotYQPNHvGauevJTn6N/y9BiJwi+c8+uZrxQ
	ocFnAd8jmClzKaDAv9Gv9eAVcRMWuOz38XJAO2K0R8FhOcGFpI43kbgLPJedtlcE
	01Zq7rhcTjFOjzAI+t1L2PvS8vE7QqjB44q/GEX/N54FrVKSRhXPW8=
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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	bh=GgnO8yZnTR6cjfhy98JZ4lAu2ng=; b=HxOgjRbtJl9ch0wHHRl2P5FxqegO
	VVQYEwfJFxjeq4zcKPQ5it5KlfCA6h9453Iwsn5JyfF/sR28fl/0K/QNKRRIojOn
	LSvL1Ft5C4crZhI1OlXHkTb5zCr4CSh5yOCPNvFDl+wzeMHgp1rmUmNQJ6NRcNR2
	UpiiA3+e9diakVw=
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=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org
X-Mail-Handler:	Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To:	abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User:	U2FsdGVkX19fKNSsLmrxARo5CdiFjBlU
Date:	Fri, 9 May 2014 10:31:26 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: strace and sigprocmask
Message-ID:	<20140509143126.GA7174@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<f5bzjir5cx4 DOT fsf AT troutbeck DOT inf DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<f5bzjir5cx4.fsf@troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:55:51PM +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>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.

This is a a bug (now fixed) in the source.  The first argument to
sigprocmask was not being sent to the strace printf, pushing all of the
arguments left.

As to how you could have found the answer, it's the standard answer for
free software projects - look at the source.

cgf

--
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 -