Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:02:34 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Bug: fhandler.cc rev=1.116 source code level bug in fhandler_base::dup (fhandler_base *child)
Message-ID: <20020522220234.GA24565@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020522165921 DOT GB3592 AT redhat DOT com> <200205222127 DOT OAA23136 AT kankakee DOT wrs DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200205222127.OAA23136@kankakee.wrs.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:27:16PM -0700, mike stump wrote:
>> 1) What's "gmake"?
>
>GNU make.

Yeah, I sort of figured that.  Is this the make that comes with the
distribution or something you've built yourself?

>> 2) Why shouldn't it "set an error" if handle 0 is closed?

No answer here...

>> 3) Why would anyone do a dup(dup(-1))?
>
>Because they can.  dup(-1) is defined to return -1, and otherwise not
>do anything and set errno to EBADF.

I'm aware that you should be able to use a -1 but I can't imagine
writing a program which does anything useful with that.

However, it looks like there is a logic error in dup() where if it is
passed a -1, it will not reliably set an EBADF errno.  The fix does not
look like what you proposed, hoever.

>> 4) Why would setting nh to anything affect this code?  This code path is
>>    only invoked for /cygdrive or /proc style paths.

No answer here?

>> If you have a specific problem, you should provide a test case.  I don't
>> see any problems with recursive invocation of gmake jobs with stdio.
>
>compare:
>
>	( exec <&-; make foo; )
>
>with
>
>	( exec <&-; make foo </dev/null; )
>
>Makefile:
>
>foo:
>	echo me
>	ls && echo me
>
>This needs to work.  When it works, one will see an ls, when it fails,
>one will get a core file.  On a real unix system (solaris for
>example), it works just fine

When does one see a core file?  Is this an intermittent failure?  I don't
see a core file from this behavior.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/