Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com From: Chris Faylor Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:39:45 -0400 To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Two snapshot bugs Message-ID: <20001010123945.G3352@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com References: <000801c03285$ed6c49b0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i In-Reply-To: ; from fujieda@jaist.ac.jp on Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 11:14:29PM +0900 On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 11:14:29PM +0900, Kazuhiro Fujieda wrote: >>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:47:16 +0400 >>>> "Andrej Borsenkow" said: > >> It is not command crashing. It is bash getting EOF sporadically and exiting. > >I've experienced the same problem on recent snapshots and NT 4.0 Sp6a. >The standard input of bash seems to be sporadically closed just >after fork() or exec() is invoked. But I can't find the patter of usage >to duplicate this problem. What is leading everyone to belive that this is an EOF and not just a case of bash crashing? You seem to be assuming that since bash is silently exiting it must be seeing EOF, which is not necessarily true. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com