From: cgf AT bbc DOT com (Christopher Faylor)
Subject: Possible fix for wait() EINVAL
4 Mar 1998 20:34:42 -0800
Message-ID: <EpBwGC.BKH.cygnus.cygwin32.developers@bbc.com>
Reply-To: cgf AT bbc DOT com
To: cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com

Although I can't duplicate it, some people have reported problems from
wait on Windows 95.  I think it is possible that WaitFor* functions are
actually being affected by the SuspendThread call utilized by the signal
dispatch functions.

I had previously attempted to work around this by re-waiting after a
wait fails inexplicably but, on reflection, this probably wasn't a very
good idea.

The patch below attempts to handle this by just reorganizing the code
slightly.

	patch from cgf AT bbc DOT com (Christopher Faylor)
	* wait.cc (wait4): Attempt to work around theorized problem where
	Windows 95 incorrectly causes a WaitForSingleObject to return an
	error when its thread is suspended.

begin 664 wait95.gz
M'XL(```````"`]U376_:,!1]AE]Q6FEJDB:09-U&8)W$1M AT R49@`K2^36$@,
M>$WMR$G&JK7_?78"%/:IJ7N:E>C:OO>>>^Z'8[I8P(I21#=+5F26U[)=UVVN
M0YHWH AT AKRK(BW1YK=<,P?FY9FQ8$?3*'8\-UV\Z3MNO`\;Q6W;*L[V$N.,-%
M*&"[L+VV_!X_K6R-PP7E<`:-LASR3VEL*@DCR\.\R*H#3W-:\GK6,EL>E%\=
MY5KRG(/Q:$636!#6D=?U(WF_X&*#B7/8'2F>PY7B]%0O]<#7C00F)!^$6>X+
MH9QLO;/3T`4T3402XE*R[',QH6R9D-'\$XER:(JZ#&0B&/:#83#U=1WGTK8;
M3&>CEV_]5].9C=M;"5<#),S11M?O!@._5VGNU^L#&KJR]L?CT7 AT 6#-]W!T%O
M]J8[[`U\Q;\V%R2\VO*\4TFK34:7J>#1+!4R<TG]^%'\*^J-1D/_P(Y-24OF
MJ_JG2NM"[JP_E/9OZM%Y,+4'C8O7,AW'V9^7NVT6JK5[+=FV2]_8W4]'T\`E
M0;;B11*SDQP9R4&$8!RR/"&[@0A9S*_Q.4SD\Y"P:X(H9%B1)(5\"V7W)X0@
M7Q&\XQG]@NN0%6%2SFB(A&:2\4+YT[A"R4K5QS+*20,PFCLV,OJLBJ[YY5R4
M):Y6V1C+Z>Q254XDR4I6VMIZ4=5(C:CE_)CH(?1T_#MD-3">8SKVV?[$'!3W
1G\8[R.1_;]LWWE.G*[`%``!Z
`
end
-- 
http://www.bbc.com/	cgf AT bbc DOT com			"Strange how unreal
VMS=>UNIX Solutions	Boston Business Computing	 the real can be."