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: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:23:01 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: SIGCLD (?) problem Message-ID: <20020811192301.GA9017@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <016a01c24148$e61594e0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <016a01c24148$e61594e0$6132bc3e@BABEL> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote: >So it looks (to the untrained eye) like a race, but I've not got >anywhere much myself so I thought I'd punt on this one and hope >some more wizardly being out there might see something in all >this. I don't see how there could be a race. thread 2 should be the signal thread. It would be interesting to see what it is doing. It sounds like it has not been started or something, which would make the "wait_for_me" function block forever. I've made some changes and added some assertions throughout the code. I don't think they will solve the problem but it may make things a little clearer if there is a problem. >p.s. I'll keep this process hung in gdb for the moment in case I >get enthusiastic tomorrow or someone else wants some more >information. Could you check on the value of wait_sig_inited? Is it non-zero? The problem is that the process processing thread should not have to be waiting for this. Although, it looks like it is possible for this scenario to happen if a process forks, and then quickly execs. My just-checked-in-changes change that behavior. So, now if it hangs it should hang in fork. cgf