Re: [1.7] sigwait bug (SIGCHLD delayed to a next regular signal)

2009-09-21 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes: > > > >To satisfy the condition (quoted from posix) "action is anything other > >than to ignore", SIGCHLD (and all other signals which default action is > >to ignore) must be setup a handler even if it seems "not useful". > >Being blocked is not sufficient.

Re: [1.7] sigwait bug (SIGCHLD delayed to a next regular signal)

2009-09-21 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes: > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:31:58AM +, Waldemar Rachwal wrote: > > > >If the action associated with a blocked signal is anything other than to > >ignore the signal, and if that signal is generated for the thread, >

Re: [1.7] sigwait bug (SIGCHLD delayed to a next regular signal)

2009-09-19 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes: > > Thanks for the test case. The problem has nothing to do with anything > "special" about SIGCHLD. It's a signal like any other signal. > I am not sure it's clear. With regard to sigwait() SIGCHLD like any other signal must not only be blocked, additi

[1.7] sigwait bug (SIGCHLD delayed to a next regular signal)

2009-09-18 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
A problem seems very close to one described in http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2009-08/msg00797.html and now I don't think it can be easily explained by "limitation in Cygwin's implementation of SIGWINCH". What I did this time... When I fork children and next observe their termination in the pare

Re: Howto get Cygwin<->Linux interoperability on NTFS filesystems (symbolic links issue)

2009-08-26 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
Waldemar Rachwal gmail.com> writes: > > Corinna Vinschen cygwin.com> writes: > > > Never mind. It was easier than I anticipated. I checked in a patch to > > support reading Interix symlinks. However, this only works as expected > > for relative symlinks, si

Re: sigwait() and

2009-08-26 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes: > > If you are talking about the resizing of, say, the standard Windows > console window that Cygwin runs in by default then that is, > unfortunately, a limitation in Cygwin's implementation of SIGWINCH that > is probably not going to change. > > It should

Re: Howto get Cygwin<->Linux interoperability on NTFS filesystems (symbolic links issue)

2009-08-26 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
Corinna Vinschen cygwin.com> writes: > > On Aug 26 21:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > It would be no big problem to support Interix > > symlink R/O support as well. After all this time without Interix > > symlink support, I don't think it's such a pressing problem, though. > > I'll add it to

sigwait() and "sticky" signals (SIGWINCH...) in Cygwin 1.7

2009-08-26 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
I observe strange behavior of sigwait() with SIGWINCH signal (and possibly others... like SIGCHLD). Look at a short program below. In a loop I wait for SIG{INT,WINCH} signals. SIGWINCH, similarly to SIGCHLD is ignored by default, so I had to register a dummy signal handler for it. When the progra

Howto get Cygwin<->Linux interoperability on NTFS filesystems (symbolic links issue)

2009-08-26 Thread Waldemar Rachwal
Cygwin 1.7 has *read* support of symlinks created by Vista+, but *no write* for reasonable reasons (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-01/msg00936.html). That's not bad, as working in dual-boot system, when it comes to switch to Linux, I would convert all cygwin-like symlinks to NTFS's native sy