X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:36:37 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 1.7.0-58 fixes fork crash in 1.7-compiled app running on 1.5 Message-ID: <20090817073637.GN32408@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Aug 16 13:54, Martin Dorey wrote: > -58 fixed a repeatable crash I was seeing in fork on every machine on > which I ran a particular big hairy application > (http://software.jessies.org/terminator). Nothing new there, so I only > spam you with my thanks because the machines in question were all > running 1.5, though the executable was compiled with 1.7. I didn't > notice that symptom reported previously. I'd got as far as proving that > the problem didn't happen in -50 and did in -51 through -57 inclusive. > I was hoping to pin the change in behavior more conclusively on Dave > Korn's big memory allocation check-in of 2009-07-07, which I believe was > between -50 and -51, before reporting it. This is somewhat contrary to > Corinna's statement in the -58 announcement that the problem was > introduced in -49. Hey, you're right! It wasn't introduced in -49, rather in -51. My annoncement is lying there. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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