Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:44:59 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: close to 1.3.4 Message-ID: <20011008114459.A18742@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20011003000628 DOT A28762 AT redhat DOT com> <7317101690 DOT 20011005175451 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20011005175404 DOT A13034 AT redhat DOT com> <20011005210557 DOT A14091 AT redhat DOT com> <187255818497 DOT 20011008121332 AT logos-m DOT ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <187255818497.20011008121332@logos-m.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:13:32PM +0400, egor duda wrote: >Hi! > >Saturday, 06 October, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote: > >CF> On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:54:04PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:54:51PM +0400, egor duda wrote: >>>>Wednesday, 03 October, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote: >>>>CF> I'm a little reluctant to release 1.3.4 without Corinna's stabilizing >>>>CF> presence but if no one has any objections, I'll probably do this in >>>>CF> the next couple of days. >>>> >>>>i get a bunch of "mark_closed: attempt to close protected handle" in >>>>'expect' while running gas testsuite. i don't know if it indicates a >>>>real problem, but i'm looking at it now. >>> >>>So far, I haven't been able to duplicate this. I'm trying again with various >>>CYGWIN= settings. > >CF> Ok, I duplicated it with CYGWIN=tty ntsec. > >oh, i should have told what options i'm using from the beginning. will >certainly do next time. > >CF> I think I've checked in a fix for the problem. > >i wonder if such things should be a bit more "intrusive" in debugging >version, i.e. should we call api_fatal on errors in add_handle and/or >mark closed? if we do, i'd be easier to write test-cases for such >problems. it won't affect normal users, since releases are built with >debugging code disabled. Good idea. I think you're right that debugging version should exit on such errors. In this case the error was in the tracking of open/closed handles -- the debugging code was at fault. It almost feels like this happens 50% of the time. In the other 50% the ProtectHandle stuff actually unearths valid bugs. So it is useful. So, whether it is a bug in the debugging code or an actual handle botch, it would be good to have some mechanism for making these errors fatal. So, I guess that changing the warning to an error (change system_printf to api_fatal) in mark closed would be a good thing. cgf