Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:27:29PM -0500, Bob Byrnes wrote: >> > If this is a problem with the new pipe code then maybe Bob Byrnes could >> > offer some insight. >> >> Offhand, I can't think of any way that the new pipe stuff could cause >> this behavior, but I'll add this to my list of (potential) pipe-related >> things to investigate and think about. > > From what I can see the failure is related to pipes: > > 41 673146 [main] ssh 4392 cygwin_select: 7, 0x100EEBF8, 0x100EEB70, > 0x0, 0x0 > 65 673211 [main] ssh 4392 dtable::select_read: fd 3 > 662 673873 [main] ssh 4392 dtable::select_read: fd 4 > 33 673906 [main] ssh 4392 cygwin_select: to NULL, ms FFFFFFFF > 34 673940 [main] ssh 4392 cygwin_select: sel.always_ready 0 > 307 674247 [main] ssh 4392 start_thread_socket: Handle 0x634 > 33 674280 [main] ssh 4392 start_thread_socket: Added to readfds > 34 674314 [main] ssh 4392 start_thread_socket: exitsock 0x620 > 33 674347 [main] ssh 4392 start_thread_socket: stuff_start 0x22EBE4 > 98 674445 [main] ssh 4392 select_stuff::wait: m 3, ms 4294967295 > 43 674488 [select_socket] ssh 4392 thread_socket: stuff_start > 0x101196BC > 71 674559 [select_pipe] ssh 4392 peek_pipe: , PeekNamedPipe failed, > Win32 error 109 > > 109 is "The pipe has been ended". Isn't that strange when reading a pipe? > Unfortunately fd 4 was opened in a part of the trace that we don't have.
I'll have a look tomorrow in the office, where fd 4 came from (thought I posted all related stuff, but trace is hard). Still have the full protocol though. > Sending a url to the full trace is more useful (and less controversial) > than sending parts. You're right. Will try to find a place online tomorrow. - Jörg -- 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/
