Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:51:23 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.5.9-1: socket() appears NOT to be thread-safe
Message-ID: <20040522005123.GB14563@coe.bosbc.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20040415174118 DOT GA8644 AT coe DOT bosbc DOT com> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0405211650500 DOT 3524 AT fordpc DOT vss DOT fsi DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.CYG.4.58.0405211650500.3524@fordpc.vss.fsi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:21:19PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Corinna showed me that this was a problem in my autoload code rather
>>than a problem with winsock.  That's comforting.  I guess I've grown
>>too quick to judge Windows.
>>
>>I've checked in a fix and am regenerating a snapshot.  The fix
>>consisted of deleting a few lines of code so that's always nice...
>>
>>Thanks for the test case.  It helped a lot in tracking this problem
>>down.
>
>I still see the same symptom (ie.  socket randomly returns "Operation
>not permitted" at application startup) with current CVS, but not with
>the original test case, and only on a dual CPU box :-(.

It's not usually helpful to see a "it doesn't work" a month after the
announcement of a fix.  Call me absent minded but I don't even remember
what I did to supposedly fix this.

>About 30% of the time, socket returns the error above.  I tried
>replacing the exec line in the shell script with:
>
>exec strace -o tracefile -b 1000000 socket_error.exe
>
>but then it doesn't fail.  It also doesn't fail if socket_error.exe is
>launched directly from the bash prompt.
>
>I will keep trying to come up with a test case that I can actually study,
>but I was hoping someone might have an idea about how to catch it better
>or where to look.

Put a call to the debugger at the offending error message and look around.

>Is it possible that the autoload code needs to be made dual CPU safe?

No.

cgf

--
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/