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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s= default; b=jRvmig/K4NQ1Mmc4has6jErbtMnUjv8FCafB0BA69841goPtnWJJs OacQHgVu+7Yh63dehsrDoCqNCIEWonin4SMedDqkSFdJ9lIV7b2dVzmrnqFgBw5Z kt1INWEm6C74CwAL8yPl4q7/0nC0mCMfyidsH/1Xy4kjEUtuHj1WJ8= 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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=jjzD3Ubkw2gON7eUzMeWh7spG2s=; b=PBZbvaOMP3C95y+L9y0jmtsT7p9L WM+e2hpr125qRzg8oZfXsD3fiFU2cc4nYRBmCJw9rG00RI9MNMu3Egu4TuT/O0pp SMzAf/4/1L2/lvEChhcguSWn///0K+KZ81+2UrubVQNpI/yhB/hs/4IdIcQMr4om xpaHbp5oG9vbNvM= 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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:11:11 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin 32bit vs 64bit difference: SIGQUIT Message-ID: <20130731141111.GB4166@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <51F90C4C DOT 5040105 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51F90C4C.5040105@cwilson.fastmail.fm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Jul 31 09:08, Charles Wilson wrote: > I was running the automake-1.12 test suite, and found a difference > in behavior between the two cygwin's. On 32bit, it appears to miss > the SIGQUIT signal: > > > ========== 32 bit ========== > PASS: t/tap-signal.tap 1 - "make check" fails > FAIL: t/tap-signal.tap 2 - count of test results > PASS: t/tap-signal.tap 3 - TAP driver catch test termination by > signal SIGHUP > PASS: t/tap-signal.tap 4 - TAP driver catch test termination by > signal SIGINT > FAIL: t/tap-signal.tap 5 - TAP driver catch test termination by > signal SIGQUIT Hmm. $ cat In another shell: $ ps PID PPID PGID WINPID TTY UID STIME COMMAND 568 2276 568 2952 pty0 11001 16:08:59 /usr/bin/tcsh 1696 1012 1696 1652 pty1 11001 16:09:08 /usr/bin/ps 1012 1112 1012 2704 pty1 11001 16:09:05 /usr/bin/tcsh I 2324 568 2324 816 pty0 11001 16:09:02 /usr/bin/cat 1112 1 1112 1112 ? 11001 16:09:05 /usr/bin/mintty 2276 1 2276 2276 ? 11001 16:08:59 /usr/bin/mintty $ kill -QUIT 2324 In the first shell: Quit (core dumped) $ > .... which doesn't really tell you much without the rest of the test > driver machinery, but I include it for completeness. > > The point of this post is the following question: is there a known > difference in the signal handling code between cygwin32 and cygwin64 > that could explain why I see different behavior with respect to > SIGQUIT? No. STC? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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