On 2013-11-15 20:21, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 07:53:26PM +0100, Denis Excoffier wrote: >> On 2013-11-14 05:01, Tom Honermann wrote: >>> On 12/21/2012 01:30 AM, Tom Honermann wrote: >>>> >>>> The workaround I implemented within Cygwin was simple and sloppy. I >>>> added a call to Sleep(1000) immediately before the call to ExitThread() >>>> in wait_sig() in winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc. Since this thread (probably) >>>> doesn't exit until the process is exiting anyway, the call to Sleep() >>>> does not adversely affect shutdown. The thread just gets terminated >>>> while in the call to Sleep() instead of exiting before the process is >>>> terminated or getting terminated while still in the call to >>>> ExitThread(). A better solution might be to avoid the thread exiting at >>>> all (so long as it can't get terminated while holding critical >>>> resources), or to have the process exiting thread wait on it. Neither >>>> of these is ideal. Orderly shutdown of multi-threaded processes is >>>> really hard to do correctly on Windows. >> >> I experience on Windows 7 (not on XP) some problems that may be related. >> I would like to test your workaround, but sigproc.cc has much changed since >> then, there is now an exit_thead function with the comment "Exit the current >> thread very carefully.". I tried to insert Sleep(1000) at the end of >> exit_thread, immediately before "ExitThread (0)", but this yielded no >> change at all. >> >> Could someone be kind enough to update the workaround for modern sigproc.cc? > > You apparently are misunderstanding the whole point of the changes to > sigproc.cc. They were to work around this very problem.
Oh, i didn’t remember that. Then this must be the antivirus or something else i have to cope with. Regards, Denis Excoffier. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
