Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<005c01c22b33$b2e3b870$6132bc3e@BABEL>
From:	"Conrad Scott" <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
To:	<cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<002a01c22b2f$07f9bda0$6132bc3e AT BABEL>
Subject:	Re: Protect handle issue-ettes
Date:	Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:40:55 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

I wrote:
> I'm still not clear why the cygserver code disturbs this
> mechanism so much: I wasn't getting the seg. fault on
> the HEAD version.  I've now added calls to ProtectHandle
> into the cygserver code, so this doesn't seem to be
> anything to do with their (previous) omission.

Just to clarify, the seg. fault also goes away w/o the debug.cc
patch once I add the ProtectHandle calls to the cygserver code,
but the noise is even worse.

// Conrad

- Raw text -