DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=gbDjGN7NN+XaZVtlNuXcCKChwzoe98M2u2Nxsp+574+jHKvLEuPU/
	46Y0N5rKFZUJugwBYDyhsSOi07SYhghoZPss9TptNVJb/naiyVdEpcD7zZVoOut6
	DUwfArBpEsVIjNqaMntvqrRzLBBiOLN6p5GjGkvJFvn8wpL6zodXXE=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:21:47 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: bug#14569: 24.3.50; bootstrap fails on Cygwin
Message-ID: <20130615062147.GB5377@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <E143AC75-8C2B-4A59-81F6-571B9D4EEF13@swipnet.se> <2E06A322-530C-4AA2-9282-6D2E48B1D194@swipnet.se> <51B8BEFE.6070309@cs.ucla.edu> <51B8D5ED.1010407@alice.it> <C679A2B2-0264-4DDA-B900-5B90BE7CF1E9@swipnet.se> <51BA03CA.4080804@cs.ucla.edu> <BEC82502-E9FD-4F8E-B91E-F680F6885FB2@swipnet.se> <51BB56CB.7030209@cs.ucla.edu> <20130614180359.GA5295@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <51BC0352.2090600@cs.ucla.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51BC0352.2090600@cs.ucla.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:01:54PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
>On 06/14/2013 11:03 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>You pointed to an archived mail messages which implies that was fixed
>>more than a year ago.  What makes you think it is still a problem?
>
>The message I pointed to
><http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-05/msg00472.html> says this:
>
>>Testcase signal/kill: Signals may or may not reach the correct thread
>>with 1.7.12-1 and newer.
>
>Confirmed.  I think the reason is that we only have a single event to
>signal that a POSIX signal arrived instead of a per-thread event, but
>I'm not sure.  This is cgf's domain so I leave it at that for now.
>
>I interpreted this to mean "the existence of the bug is confirmed,
>here's why the bug occurs, and I'll let cgf deal with it".  I didn't
>see any followup message where cgf (is that you?) dealt with it.  My
>apologies if I misinterpreted the email.

Oops.  I didn't read Corinna's message as thoroughly as I should have.
Sorry.

That particular issue was supposed to have been fixed in Cygwin 1.7.17,
released in October 2012.

cgf

--
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