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:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=BqgsUTekDcHR9Q/8
	nbXcHH0p0+WWJqvR6xrux/ZrGHj7qIFt99hU5A7sqokI9ZRPdCv0Srf+gNMhfSrj
	h93DFXu0hiClAQi4NF8oEdK3qRoYBfIUfPs3I8OWEoRy1T2EiHRtRH5utyv7z16V
	c3Ud8OLWQZ6C8ueR+2U+xCYSx8A=
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:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=5g2WraqMcW8zBMqVB3jRWx
	CKQkc=; b=bl/t5YIfaN9SYu+rr+Z/mmsuZYfvav5qrBnteppckBGzURFJ/m9gmb
	u6g/MJxHz6Vp2f0a1xS+rhqB+18kYbik93fyt0lBUYKLFptv6AV7njVvoI5ggqQw
	TkN2oaLf24zx6Y+DimzPEB5yrTU2kdlipG/Vr48ntmzfm7pabNBUY=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS,TW_CG autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already.
Message-ID: <51BDFB25.8080101@cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:51:33 -0400
From: Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
CC: 14569 AT debbugs DOT gnu DOT org
Subject: Re: bug#14569: 24.3.50; bootstrap fails on Cygwin
References: <51BC720D DOT 7080504 AT alice DOT it> <51BDB979 DOT 3040508 AT cornell DOT edu> <20130616150141 DOT GB3622 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To: <20130616150141.GB3622@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On 6/16/2013 11:01 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 09:11:21AM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
>> [Adding the bug address back to the CC so that this gets archived.]
>>
>> On 6/15/2013 9:54 AM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-05/msg00472.html> 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)?
>>
>> I can replicate this on my system, consistently.  There's clearly a
>> problem, but it's not the same as in the original Cygwin bug report.  In
>> the present case, the signal is received by the right thread, but
>> something goes wrong afterwards.
>
> Try it on Linux.  I don't see any difference.  "An error" in this case
> seems to be the script working as designed.
>
> % man sem_wait
>
>      SEM_WAIT(3)   Linux Programmer's Manual      SEM_WAIT(3)
>
>
>
>      NAME
> 	   sem_wait, sem_timedwait, sem_trywait - lock a semaphore
>
>      ...
>
>      ERRORS
> 	   EINTR  The call was interrupted by a signal handler; see signal(7).

Yeah, I missed that.  Sorry for the noise.

Ken


--
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