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: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:48:43 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: Re: Problems with autoconf-2.52 testsuite using current CVS Cygwin Message-ID: <20010804214843.M23782@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygdev Mail-Followup-To: Corinna Vinschen , cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com References: <3B63432E DOT 6050309 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B649305 DOT 2090302 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B64C0A9 DOT 1080700 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B64F567 DOT 6060304 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B65835C DOT 9000001 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B65A2B8 DOT 90702 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B66CC47 DOT 8040704 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B6711C9 DOT 6050700 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B6C3A4F DOT 3070502 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010804144307 DOT A3038 AT redhat 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: <20010804144307.A3038@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:43:07PM -0400 On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:43:07PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:09:19PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > >Chris Faylor wrote: > >>>Ok. We seem to be slowly zeroing in on the problem. Is someone willing > >>>to debug what's going on? Why are the files deleted with > >>>VFORK/no-vfork? > >>> > >>>Has anyone tried turning off VFORK in cygwin and seeing if that solves > >>>the problem, too? > >>> > >>>We need to understand what mechanism is not being triggered to delete these > >>>files. > >> > >> > >> Anyone working on this? I'd like to make a new release someday and this > >> should obviously be fixed. > >> > >> It would be wonderful if I didn't have to actually load the newest version > >> of autoconf on my system and debug this after all of the previous debugging > >> attempts. > > > > > >Oops. It dropped off my radar screen. I'll try to take a look, but I'm > >running out of time. At the risk of sounding like Bobby, Jr. : > > > >My main development machine (a laptop) has had a mechanical failure, so > >I have to ship it off to Dell for repair on Monday. It looks like I'll > >be dead in the water for about a week after that. I will have email > >access(*) via other machines, but none of those are setup for cygwin > >devel. Or for LaTeX dissertation editing, for that matter. :-( > > I've been having some system problems too. That plus my "real job" have > limited my cygwin involvement slightly. > > It seems like Corinna has tracked this down to a potential problem with > vfork but I don't really understand what that is. It could well be a > problem with ash's use of vfork, too. Being low on time is a general problem currently, I assume. I undertook some halfhearted attempts to find the reason but to no avail. I guess you're right. It's probably the way ash uses vfork(). The interesting thing is that I even couldn't find the corresponding unlink()/rmdir() calls on the affected temp directories in the strace outputs. Strange enough, there _are_ actually `rm -rf' calls in the strace for some temporary directories but the concerned directories are actually erased. `rm' is never called for the not erased directories for some reason. If it's a problem with vfork() I would expect _failing_ unlink() calls due to still opened handle on files or similar. The fact that there are no unlink()s at all points to the vfork() usage in ash bypassing some important code. OTOH, it could also be the vfork() resulting in bypassing some important code... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc.