X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_52,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Eric Blake Subject: Re: [1.7] flock change breaks autotools 'make -j2' Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:14:49 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <20090417100148 DOT GD5200 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <49E87CFA DOT 9070709 AT byu DOT net> <20090417133103 DOT GG8722 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Corinna Vinschen cygwin.com> writes: > > > I'd prefer a testcase in C. > > > > So would I. I'm not even sure whether perl was using flock or > > lockf/fcntl. Do you still need me to try and write a STC, or at least > > test how perl behaves with your first patch? > > I checked in a patch which hopefully solves both problems. The lock.pl > testcase now works, at least. Can you test if the original scenario > works now as well? If not, I'd really need another testcase. Nope; with snapshot 20090418 I'm still seeing the 'make -j2' failures. I'll see if I can come up with a C program that can be run as two processes to simulate the failure as a simpler test case. I did verify via strace that perl is using flock(fd, LOCK_EX). -- Eric Blake -- 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/