X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= default; b=yIIC9yMFSL0ySIyXXIu1ECl2HedHyPOVadcMsKYUiqCRD8RrljDA3 tE3TWVms76oi4wwQeWNzzDvyVKmWIoAbIl3HUoL7C4b5r1b1wk+s0HwbKS0bUmSk Ue8fgvzbm6nKHEt73vAzyjhMnN3ofiDdMUmTdfLuSQi3rNzonzQ5Yo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=D 7ZLPlc5OMC1+8Kv2EUeNPxfzak=; b=xCbvQ1aNhPyKWETkXf+mZ8O3nQjarMi5A p/FRBGEbXyMQ9FoqP5+RQDS7s6/OprDqYt//gOnXJazYe6r3YjMzMN+hrMSiwQXO lH4DeZm049a8yQ7aM6qI0QLPRegHlN62kxQ+pK+df6YlTXzknorlybtB0G1UkBRB yHJNzCDutg= 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 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_DNSBL_BUMP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TW_CG autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Message-ID: <51BC720D.7080504@alice.it> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:54:21 +0200 From: Angelo Graziosi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cygwin CC: Paul Eggert , bug-emacs Subject: Re: bug#14569: 24.3.50; bootstrap fails on Cygwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Faylor wrote >>On 06/14/2013 11:03 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>You pointed to an archived mail messages which implies that was fixed >>>more than a year ago. What makes you think it is still a problem? >> >>The message I pointed to >> says this: >> >>>Testcase signal/kill: Signals may or may not reach the correct thread >>>with 1.7.12-1 and newer. >> >>Confirmed. I think the reason is that we only have a single event to >>signal that a POSIX signal arrived instead of a per-thread event, but >>I'm not sure. This is cgf's domain so I leave it at that for now. >> >>I interpreted this to mean "the existence of the bug is confirmed, >>here's why the bug occurs, and I'll let cgf deal with it". I didn't >>see any followup message where cgf (is that you?) dealt with it. My >>apologies if I misinterpreted the email. > > Oops. I didn't read Corinna's message as thoroughly as I should have. > Sorry. > > That particular issue was supposed to have been fixed in Cygwin 1.7.17, > released in October 2012. Out of curiosity, I tried the test cases I found in that thread, more precisely here: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-05/msg00434.html and the results are: $ gcc otto_test1.c -o otto_test1 $ ./otto_test1 Testing deferred pthread_cancel() Thread 0 starting (0x200102c0) Thread 1 starting (0x20010360) Thread 2 starting (0x20010400) Cancelling thread 2 (0x20010400) Thread 2 exiting (0x20010400) Cancelling thread 1 (0x20010360) Thread 1 exiting (0x20010360) Cancelling thread 0 (0x200102c0) Thread 0 exiting (0x200102c0) Thread 0 is gone (0x200102c0) Thread 1 is gone (0x20010360) Thread 2 is gone (0x20010400) $ gcc otto_test2.c -o otto_test2 $ ./otto_test2 Testing asynchronous pthread_cancel() Thread 0 starting (0x200102c0) Changing canceltype from 0 to 1 Thread 1 starting (0x20010360) Changing canceltype from 0 to 1 Thread 2 starting (0x20010400) Changing canceltype from 0 to 1 Cancelling thread 2 (0x20010400) Thread 2 exiting (0x20010400) Cancelling thread 1 (0x20010360) Thread 1 exiting (0x20010360) Cancelling thread 0 (0x200102c0) Thread 0 exiting (0x200102c0) Thread 0 is gone (0x200102c0) Thread 1 is gone (0x20010360) Thread 2 is gone (0x20010400) $ gcc otto_test3.c -o otto_test3 $ ./otto_test3 Testing pthread_kill() Thread 0 starting (0x200102c0) Thread 1 starting (0x20010360) Thread 2 starting (0x20010400) Sending SIGUSR1 to thread 2 (0x20010400) Thread 2 executes signal handler (0x20010400) Thread 2 encountered an error: Interrupted system call (0x20010400) Sending SIGUSR1 to thread 1 (0x20010360) Thread 1 executes signal handler (0x20010360) Thread 1 encountered an error: Interrupted system call (0x20010360) Sending SIGUSR1 to thread 0 (0x200102c0) Thread 0 executes signal handler (0x200102c0) Thread 0 encountered an error: Interrupted system call (0x200102c0) Are the errors in the last test case to be expected under the 20130612 snapshot (CYGWIN_NT-5.1, 1.7.21s 20130612 21:06:59, i686 Cygwin)? Ciao, Angelo. -- 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