On 2012-05-22 13:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[...]
>> Testcase signal/kill:
>> Signals may or may not reach the correct thread with 1.7.12-1 and newer.
>
> Confirmed. I think the reason is that we only have a single event to
> signal that a POSIX signal arrived instead of a per-thread event, but
On May 24 18:34, Otto Meta wrote:
> > Weird. I tried under CMD now as well, but it still runs and runs and
> > runs, without a failure. Tested on XP, W7, and 2008 R2.
>
> Maybe It’s Just Me then.
>
> > Another idea is that your system also fails due to the problem reported
> > in http://cygwin.
> Weird. I tried under CMD now as well, but it still runs and runs and
> runs, without a failure. Tested on XP, W7, and 2008 R2.
Maybe It’s Just Me then.
> Another idea is that your system also fails due to the problem reported
> in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-05/msg00522.html
> I'm just a
On May 24 17:03, Otto Meta wrote:
> On 2012-05-24 13:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > You know that Cygwin is just a user space DLL, right? There's no state
> > information kept in the OS beyond the lifetime of any process using the
> > Cygwin DLL. In case of pthreads, there's no state at all shar
On 2012-05-24 13:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> You know that Cygwin is just a user space DLL, right? There's no state
> information kept in the OS beyond the lifetime of any process using the
> Cygwin DLL. In case of pthreads, there's no state at all shared with
> other processes.
Yes, that’s ex
On May 24 12:35, Otto Meta wrote:
> > My testcases for asynchronous and deferred cancel work on threads
> > blocked in sem_wait() but still fail mostly on threads blocked in
> > read(STDIN_FILENO, ...), same as before. Sorry about that.
>
> I spoke too soon. There seems to be some kind of runtime
> My testcases for asynchronous and deferred cancel work on threads
> blocked in sem_wait() but still fail mostly on threads blocked in
> read(STDIN_FILENO, ...), same as before. Sorry about that.
I spoke too soon. There seems to be some kind of runtime decay and a
dependency on semaphore.h.
Runn
> I think I found the problem. I've uploaded a new snapshot. Please give
> it a try.
My testcases for asynchronous and deferred cancel work on threads
blocked in sem_wait() but still fail mostly on threads blocked in
read(STDIN_FILENO, ...), same as before. Sorry about that.
$ uname -v
20120523
On May 23 13:33, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 1:10 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On May 23 19:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On May 23 10:42, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >>> On 5/23/2012 10:18 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Ok, for the time being I checked in my workaround. Ple
On 5/23/2012 1:10 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 23 19:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On May 23 10:42, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2012 10:18 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Ok, for the time being I checked in my workaround. Please test the
today's developer snapshot.
>>>
>>>
On May 23 19:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 23 10:42, David Rothenberger wrote:
> > On 5/23/2012 10:18 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Ok, for the time being I checked in my workaround. Please test the
> > > today's developer snapshot.
> >
> > I tried installing this snapshot and found mo
On May 23 10:42, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 10:18 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On May 23 18:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On May 23 10:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On May 22 15:25, Otto Meta wrote:
> >> Testcase cancel deferred:
> >> Works with 1.7.9 and 20120517 sn
On 5/23/2012 10:18 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 23 18:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On May 23 10:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On May 22 15:25, Otto Meta wrote:
>> Testcase cancel deferred:
>> Works with 1.7.9 and 20120517 snapshot, fails (hangs) with 1.7.12-1
>> and 1.7.15-1
On May 23 18:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 23 10:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On May 22 15:25, Otto Meta wrote:
> > > >> Testcase cancel deferred:
> > > >> Works with 1.7.9 and 20120517 snapshot, fails (hangs) with 1.7.12-1
> > > >> and 1.7.15-1.
> > > > If that works in the snapshot anyw
On May 23 10:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 22 15:25, Otto Meta wrote:
> > >> Testcase cancel deferred:
> > >> Works with 1.7.9 and 20120517 snapshot, fails (hangs) with 1.7.12-1
> > >> and 1.7.15-1.
> > > If that works in the snapshot anyway, I'm not going to look into that
> > > one.
> >
>
On May 22 15:25, Otto Meta wrote:
> >> Testcase cancel deferred:
> >> Works with 1.7.9 and 20120517 snapshot, fails (hangs) with 1.7.12-1
> >> and 1.7.15-1.
> > If that works in the snapshot anyway, I'm not going to look into that
> > one.
>
> It worked in the reduced testcase with sem_wait(). Wit
>> Testcase cancel deferred:
>> Works with 1.7.9 and 20120517 snapshot, fails (hangs) with 1.7.12-1
>> and 1.7.15-1.
> If that works in the snapshot anyway, I'm not going to look into that
> one.
It worked in the reduced testcase with sem_wait(). With read() it’s
still half-broken. See below.
>>
Hi Otto,
On May 21 14:44, Otto Meta wrote:
> > Would you mind to provide *simple* testcases to allow easy debugging
> > of your observations?
>
> I reduced the various tests to three rather simple individual testcases
> because those show possibly different bugs.
Thanks!
> Testcase cancel defer
> Would you mind to provide *simple* testcases to allow easy debugging
> of your observations?
I reduced the various tests to three rather simple individual testcases
because those show possibly different bugs.
Testcase cancel deferred:
Works with 1.7.9 and 20120517 snapshot, fails (hangs) with 1
On May 21 12:26, Otto Meta wrote:
> > You should always try the most recent http://cygwin.com/snapshots.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, that did indeed change something: The tests
> yield the same half-broken behaviour for pthread_cancel as with 1.7.7
> and 1.7.9. That’s better than the almost com
> You should always try the most recent http://cygwin.com/snapshots.
Thanks for the suggestion, that did indeed change something: The tests
yield the same half-broken behaviour for pthread_cancel as with 1.7.7
and 1.7.9. That’s better than the almost completely broken behaviour
from 1.7.12-1 to 1.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Otto Meta wrote:
>
> Any suggestions or ideas?
You should always try the most recent http://cygwin.com/snapshots.
--
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin
Greetings,
as I got no response to my first question, I tried two older Cygwin
versions to narrow down the problem. Maybe this’ll help someone to
figure out the cause.
I tried 1.7.9 and 1.7.12-1, with the results of 1.7.12-1 being exactly
like the ones from 1.7.14-2 and 1.7.15-1. Unfortunately I
23 matches
Mail list logo
