X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:31:09 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin 1.7.5, perl *** fatal error TP_NUM_W_BUFS too smal
Message-ID: <20100617223109.GA10331@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20100603004331 DOT eehneofq8kos4ccw AT webmail DOT 12000 DOT org> <4C07FC62 DOT 90207 AT 12000 DOT org> <20100604083653 DOT GA6401 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1276810422 DOT 7124 DOT 26 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1276810422.7124.26.camel@YAAKOV04>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 04:33:42PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 10:36 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> This looks like an internal error in Cygwin which runs out of TLS
>> filename buffers.  For a start, could you please strace the perl
>> process?  This may help to figure out the function in which the problem
>> occurs.
>
>I'll bring this to your attention:
>
>http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-07/msg00710.html
>
>FWIW, I'm also seeing this -- but not with perl -- in the context of
>fork(), where the actual commands work just fine manually.

Do you have a test case?  I tried to make one but "it didn't fail for
me".  If you can generate a test case I'm sure I could fix the problem.

Barring that can you try building a version of the dll with
TP_NUM_W_BUFS set to 11, 12, 13, etc.  to see if that fixes the problem?
It is barely possible that the number is too small now.

I don't see how fork would exacerbate any problem here as Corinna
concluded in the email that you cite since it seems like no destructors
would or should ever be called by fork().

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