Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:52:45 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: Cygwin-Developers <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: 2001-06-28 CVS ash Background Win32 Process Hang Problem
Message-ID: <20010716115244.A2613@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin-Developers <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <20010713201339 DOT A11377 AT redhat DOT com> <20010716093001 DOT A561 AT dothill DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010716093001.A561@dothill.com>; from Jason.Tishler@dothill.com on Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 09:30:01AM -0400

On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 09:30:01AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>Chris,
>
>On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 08:13:39PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:09:05PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> >On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 04:28:11PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> >> The problem does not occur in 1.3.2 -- so it has been introduced since
>> >> that release.
>> >
>> >It appears that this problem was introduced somewhere between 1.3.2
>> >(which uname -a indicates was built on 2001-05-20 23:28) and when the
>> >2001-05-22 snapshot was built.  Unfortunately, even after reviewing the
>> >CVS commit mailing list, I could not find the culprit.
>>
>> The problem is due to a bug in vfork.  I thought I'd reported that in
>> the past.
>
>While reading cygwin-cvs, I did see the following:
>
>    http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2001-q2/msg00182.html
>
>Now I understand why I'm seeing the problem starting with the first
>snapshot after 1.3.2.
>
>Should the build process default to turning off vfork (i.e.,
>--enable-vfork=no) until the bug is fixed?

No.  We haven't released anything.  This actually isn't just a vfork
problem, it's a spawn/nowait problem.  vfork uses the spawn/nowait
mechanism.

You're welcome to turn this off for your own purposes, though, of
course.

cgf