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: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:05:35 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: I know CVS is hosed (fix checked in) (did it work?)
Message-ID: <20010906210535.A8264@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010906113843 DOT A30174 AT redhat DOT com> <20010906154534 DOT A32372 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010906154534.A32372@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 03:45:34PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 11:38:43AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>While attempting to cut down on the size of the 1.3.3 DLL, I uncovered a few
>>problems with cygheap.  I couldn't track them down before I went to bed.
>>
>>The symptom is that applications die in cfree.  The problem manifests quickly
>>in a process which execs a process which execs a process.
>>
>>I haven't seen the problem that Egor reported with free but it probably is not
>>related to the cygheap problem.  It probably is somehow related to the new
>>code in sigproc which allocates the zombie array dynamically.
>
>The fix for this turned out to be very trivial.  It was just the requirement
>for a null pointer check.  Doh.
>
>I've checked the fix in.
>
>I'd again appreciate feedback on whether this fixes the problem or not.  It
>seems to for me.
>
>This is not a fix for the rsync problem that was recently reported.

Did this patch work?  It seems to for me.

cgf