On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:21:19PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote: >On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>Corinna showed me that this was a problem in my autoload code rather >>than a problem with winsock. That's comforting. I guess I've grown >>too quick to judge Windows. >> >>I've checked in a fix and am regenerating a snapshot. The fix >>consisted of deleting a few lines of code so that's always nice... >> >>Thanks for the test case. It helped a lot in tracking this problem >>down. > >I still see the same symptom (ie. socket randomly returns "Operation >not permitted" at application startup) with current CVS, but not with >the original test case, and only on a dual CPU box :-(.
It's not usually helpful to see a "it doesn't work" a month after the announcement of a fix. Call me absent minded but I don't even remember what I did to supposedly fix this. >About 30% of the time, socket returns the error above. I tried >replacing the exec line in the shell script with: > >exec strace -o tracefile -b 1000000 socket_error.exe > >but then it doesn't fail. It also doesn't fail if socket_error.exe is >launched directly from the bash prompt. > >I will keep trying to come up with a test case that I can actually study, >but I was hoping someone might have an idea about how to catch it better >or where to look. Put a call to the debugger at the offending error message and look around. >Is it possible that the autoload code needs to be made dual CPU safe? No. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
