Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:12:41 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: Egor Duda <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>, cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: bug in ash (Was: State of the DLL, mark 2?)
Message-ID: <20010322161241.A18144@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: Egor Duda <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>,
	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010319203650 DOT A30559 AT redhat DOT com> <907012433 DOT 20010320162719 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20010320091254 DOT F32706 AT redhat DOT com> <2710465067 DOT 20010320172451 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20010320101715 DOT K32706 AT redhat DOT com> <1983285237 DOT 20010321133832 AT logos-m DOT ru> <15325749005 DOT 20010322235224 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <15325749005.20010322235224@logos-m.ru>; from deo@logos-m.ru on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 11:52:24PM +0300

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 11:52:24PM +0300, Egor Duda wrote:
>well, i've found the reason. moreover, i've found that as was once
>patched to fix this bug, but later, patch was reverted. i wonder why.
>did it have some ill side effects?

Hmm.  I vaguely remember this.  I remember asking Corinna to look into
this but neither of us had an actual test case that tickled the bug.
I can't find any email from Corinna explaining why the bug was backed
out but I wonder if I asked her to do this in a phone call or something.

Have you tried doing a full configure/build with the ash as modified below?
If so, maybe it is safe to check this in.

>=============================================================================
>Thu Oct 12 14:28:00 2000  Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de>
>
>        * memalloc.c: Revert previous patch until it's need is proved.
>
>Tue Oct 10 16:46:00 2000  Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de>
>
>        Patch suggested by Andy Mortimer <Andy DOT Mortimer AT software DOT aeat DOT com>:
>        * memalloc.c: Add member `refcnt' to struct stack_block.
>        (stalloc): Initialize refcnt when allocating a new block.
>        (setstackmark): Increment refcnt when reusing a stack block.
>        (popstackmark): Decrement refcnt when dropping usage of a stack block.
>        (growstackblock): Reallocate a block only if it's used only once.
>=========================================================================

I will wait for Corinna to come back from holiday so that she can offer
the definitive opinion, though.

Thanks for tracking this down.  I was going to look into this myself this
weekend.  You saved me from some "enjoyable" ash hacking.  :-)

cgf