Message-ID: <4F3AA0BB.7000806@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:58:19 -0800
From: David Rothenberger <daveroth@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: STC for libapr1 failure
References: <4F3A14A8.4090506@acm.org> <20120214140240.GB25918@calimero.vinschen.de> <20120214144551.GC25918@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20120214144551.GC25918@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
>>> test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
>>> corrected. The test is no longer encountering the fatal error, but
>>> it is producing the wrong result.
>>
>> Thanks for the testcase.  I think I found the issue.  An event handle
>> was closed in the wrong place, outside of the important mutex lock for
>> the lock object.  I applied the patch to CVS.  Your testcase now appears
>> to run fine for me.  Can you try your entire testsuite again and see
>> if there's another failure lurking?
> 
> I uploaded a snapshot for testing.

Thanks. The snapshot fixes the flock test case, but now the fcntl test
case is failing.

I'll try to send an STC for that case, but I suspect the one from last
year will have the problem.

-- 
David Rothenberger  ----  daveroth@acm.org

QOTD:
        "I drive my car quietly, for it goes without saying."

--
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