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
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Nicholas Wourms <nwourms AT netscape DOT net>
Subject: Re: 1.5.1 issue?
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:28:30 -0400
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3F30055E.3000901@netscape.net>
References: <20030804160631 DOT GA9256 AT redhat DOT com> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0308041403220 DOT 27389-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <3F2EA79A DOT 7030505 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20030804184900 DOT GF23204 AT redhat DOT com> <3F2F4709 DOT 2060807 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <3F2F4709.2060807@ece.gatech.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime

Charles Wilson wrote:

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>>
>> It is not necessarily a non-problem.  If you can reproduce this
>> consistently, then it is a problem, either in make or cygwin.
> 
> 
> It is not consistent.  (is it ever? :-)

Make -j10 will probably be more useful, since running a threaded make is 
usually what triggers the issue for me.  I've also observed that the 
likelihood of creating what I call an "orphaned" process (when the 
parent returns but the child doesn't receive the proper SIG) happens to 
increase significantly as the average load increases.  While this is 
most prevalent in Make, I have seen it happen with shell scripts that 
call multiple, concurrent sub-shells.  Another observation is that this 
behavior seems to happen more frequently on Win9X boxes then on Win2k. 
What this means, I have no idea, but Chuck is right, it isn't consistent 
at all.  I'll try to grab an strace the next time I find a situation 
which does this.

Cheers,
Nicholas



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/