Chris,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:23:40AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I still can't duplicate this.
A binary search of the recent snapshots indicates that 2002-Oct-14 is OK
but 2002-Oct-15 is not. So, I think that we can conclude that one of
the following changes is the culprit:
http://cygwin.com/snapshots/winsup-changelog-20021014-20021015
Maybe the following strace snippet will ring a bell?
106 1294484 [main] exim-4.10-1 1120 fixup_mmaps_after_fork:
recreate_mmaps_after_fork, mmapped_areas 0xA041CC0
94 1294578 [main] exim-4.10-1 1120 fixup_mmaps_after_fork: fd -1, h 230, access 1,
offset 0, size 327680, address 0x1AF0000
117 1294695 [main] exim-4.10-1 1120 fhandler_disk_file::fixup_mmap_after_fork:
TTTTT: base = 0, address = 1AF0000
816 1295511 [sig] exim-4.10-1 1120 wait_sig: sigcatch_nonmain 0x2B8, sigcatch_main
0x2BC
341 1295852 [sig] exim-4.10-1 1120 wait_sig: Ready. dwProcessid 1120
-1063 1294789 [main] exim-4.10-1 1120 fixup_mmaps_after_fork: base address fails to
match requested address 0x1AF0000
Note that I added an extra debug_printf() to
fhandler_disk_file::fixup_mmap_after_fork().
Thanks,
Jason
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
