Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:32:07 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: ProtectHandle Message-ID: <20020730013207.GA24807@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <023d01c23762$47746bd0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <023d01c23762$47746bd0$6132bc3e@BABEL> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:44:35AM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote: >This is more for the record than anything else, but I've just come >up with a program that repeatedly tickles problems with the >ProtectHandle mechanism. > >I'll have a dig around with this when I get a chance but I thought >I'd post it just in case anyone else was interested in having this >fixed sooner rather than later. > >The "dup.txt" attachment is the output of the "dup.cc" program >showing some (bogus?) add_handle reports from the latest >cygwin_daemon branch code. Given that it is pinfo_shared_handle that is being complained about, I think I understand the problem. I have checked in a "Why didn't I do it that way before?" patch to deal with this. cgf