Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2001 20:27:57 +0300
From:	Egor Duda <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	The Bat! (v1.45) Personal
Reply-To:	Egor Duda <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Organization:	DEO
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
Message-ID:	<70332407186.20010312202757@logos-m.ru>
To:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
CC:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Problems with cygwin1-20010304 and Cygwin-Xemacs subprocesses
In-reply-To:	<20010312112246.A31649@redhat.com>
References:	<kvsnklidqv DOT fsf AT vzell DOT de DOT oracle DOT com>
	<20010311203018 DOT A16409 AT redhat DOT com> <kv3dcjnkxm DOT fsf AT vzell DOT de DOT oracle DOT com>
	<20010312100400 DOT F19712 AT redhat DOT com> <160326517547 DOT 20010312184947 AT logos-m DOT ru>
	<20010312112246 DOT A31649 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

Hi!

Monday, 12 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:

CF> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:49:47PM +0300, Egor Duda wrote:
>>Monday, 12 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>>>>From the errors, it *looks* like these are problems in some of Egor Duda's recent
>>CF> additions.  I'd prefer to let him look into this, if possible.
>>
>>i've   finally  make  xemacs  work  on my machine and reproduced these
>>errors.  i  hope  that  now  fixing  them is only matter of time. i'll
>>submit the patch ASAP.

CF> Is it possible that this is a problem with F_SETFD inheritance?  I seem
CF> to recall that I had problems with this when modifying tty stuff in
CF> the past.

it    looks    like   we   don't   set   need_fixup_after_fork   for
fhandler_tty_slave.  is  it  intentional?

afaics,  this  leads to the situation when process with open slave tty
forks,  forkee  doesn't call fhandler_tty_common::fixup_after_fork, as
it thinks it doesn't need to, so all handles are left invalid. if then
forkee  close  this  inherited fd of slave tty, there is a chance that
some  valid  handle  is  occasionally  equal to the, say, non-fixed-up
'input_available_event' handle, and nevertheless, we call
ForceCloseHandle(input_available_event).

if  i  understand  things  right,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  call
set_need_fork_fixup()  in  fhandler_tty_slave  constructor. or even in
fhandler_tty_common constructor?

Egor.            mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

- Raw text -