Re: Fork problem with hexchat if cygserver is running

On Aug 8 10:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 8 09:27, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > On 8/7/19 7:41 PM, Ken Brown wrote: > > > Roughly 1 out of 3 times that I try to use hexchat, I get a fork failure: > > > [...] > > >363 26064 [main] hexchat 12399 C:\cygwin64\bin\hexchat.exe: *** >

Re: Fork problem with hexchat if cygserver is running

On Aug 8 09:27, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > On 8/7/19 7:41 PM, Ken Brown wrote: > > Roughly 1 out of 3 times that I try to use hexchat, I get a fork failure: > > [...] > >363 26064 [main] hexchat 12399 C:\cygwin64\bin\hexchat.exe: *** fatal > > error > > in forked process - fixup_shms_a

Re: Fork problem with hexchat if cygserver is running

On 8/7/19 7:41 PM, Ken Brown wrote: > Roughly 1 out of 3 times that I try to use hexchat, I get a fork failure: > > 31143510 [main] hexchat 12392 dofork: child 12399 - died waiting for dll > loading, errno 11 > > It only happens if cygserver is running. I caught it under strace and saw > the

Re: Fork problem with hexchat if cygserver is running

Ken Brown writes: > P.S. File this under "No good deed goes unpunished." I was trying to use > hexchat to join #cygwin-developers. I can still do that on 2 out of 3 > attempts, > but now I'm sidetracked trying to do a bisection. FYI: I connect using znc (running on a rasPi) via erc from Emacs

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:01:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >On 11/16/2011 8:14 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:04:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: On 11/14/2011 6:11 PM, Christopher Faylor wro

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On 11/16/2011 8:14 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:04:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: On 11/14/2011 6:11 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: FYI, the last thing any developer wants to hear after a major cod

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:04:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >>On 11/14/2011 6:11 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>> FYI, the last thing any developer wants to hear after a major code >>> change is a generic "It's broke" report

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:04:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >On 11/14/2011 6:11 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> FYI, the last thing any developer wants to hear after a major code >> change is a generic "It's broke" report with no details and no way to >> duplicate the problem. A stack trace f

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On 11/14/2011 6:11 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: FYI, the last thing any developer wants to hear after a major code change is a generic "It's broke" report with no details and no way to duplicate the problem. A stack trace from a home-grown version of cygwin1.dll is not a detail. It's meaningl

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 05:09:07PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >On 11/14/2011 4:31 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 03:40:32PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >>> Hi Cgf, >>> >>> >>> after updating cygwin CVS build from >>>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2011-q4/msg00063.html

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On 11/14/2011 4:31 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 03:40:32PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: Hi Cgf, after updating cygwin CVS build from http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2011-q4/msg00063.html to http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2011-q4/msg00064.html .. 66html on CYGWIN_

Re: fork problem on latest cygwin CVS

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 03:40:32PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >Hi Cgf, > > >after updating cygwin CVS build from > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2011-q4/msg00063.html >to > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2011-q4/msg00064.html .. 66html > >on CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 > >the shell have fork issues

Re: "fork problem" debugging

Peter Ekberg lysator.liu.se> writes: > > On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 10:40:34PM +, Torfinn Ottesen wrote: > > > > > > I did this for three programs, prog1 (commercial, external), > > prog2 (inhouse, compiled on Cygwin) and native cygwin prog3: > > "echo". I claim tha

Re: "fork problem" debugging

On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 10:40:34PM +, Torfinn Ottesen wrote: > > I did this for three programs, prog1 (commercial, external), > prog2 (inhouse, compiled on Cygwin) and native cygwin prog3: > "echo". I claim that I saw increased increase memory usage > fo

Re: "fork problem" debugging

Larry Hall (Cygwin cygwin.com> writes: > The key words here are "If you use Registry Editor incorrectly". In other > words, if you modify something other than what's recommended, you might > cause yourself other problems. This is standard boiler-plate legalese that's > spewed whenever mention o

Re: "fork problem" debugging

On 05/28/2006, Torfinn Ottesen wrote: Igor Peshansky cs.nyu.edu> writes: > > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bryan D. Thomas wrote: >> > > I'm taking the risk of conflating several different >> > > issues into one. On the other hand, this might be a >> > > useful synthesis to help us bottom out on "fork >

Re: "fork problem" debugging

Igor Peshansky cs.nyu.edu> writes: > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bryan D. Thomas wrote: > > I'm taking the risk of conflating several different > > issues into one. On the other hand, this might be a > > useful synthesis to help us bottom out on "fork > > problems" so that we can turn a snapshot into

Re: "fork problem" debugging

On Thu, 18 May 2006, Bryan D. Thomas wrote: > "Igor Peshansky" wrote: > > I've been plagued by these problems for a while (since you didn't provide > > full links in your message, I don't know whether you cited my message > > among them without a lot of cutting-and-pasting). > > I didn't cite your

Re: "fork problem" debugging

"Igor Peshansky" wrote: > I've been plagued by these problems for a while (since you didn't provide > full links in your message, I don't know whether you cited my message > among them without a lot of cutting-and-pasting). I didn't cite your message[1], though it was one of the sources of the su

Re: "fork problem" debugging

On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bryan D. Thomas wrote: > I'm taking the risk of conflating several different > issues into one. On the other hand, this might be a > useful synthesis to help us bottom out on "fork > problems" so that we can turn a snapshot into a stable > release[1]? I've been plagued by th

Re: fork problem [Attn: cygserver maintainer]

Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not all mailers have this option. That doesn't give us the right of > reposting people's email addresses all over the internet. You could try > to demand that a broken mailer be fixed, or use a different mailer... > Someone on the cygwin-talk list may

Re: fork problem [Attn: cygserver maintainer]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, J. David Boyd wrote: > Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, J. David Boyd wrote: > > > >> "Luis P Caamano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > On 6 Apr 2006 03:44:22 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > > >> >> fork problem > >> >>

Re: fork problem [Attn: cygserver maintainer]

Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, J. David Boyd wrote: > >> "Luis P Caamano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On 6 Apr 2006 03:44:22 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >> >> fork problem >> >> 120469 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. David Boyd) > > Again,

Re: fork problem [Attn: cygserver maintainer]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, J. David Boyd wrote: > "Luis P Caamano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 6 Apr 2006 03:44:22 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> fork problem > >> 120469 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. David Boyd) Again, . Let's stop this

Re: fork problem

"Luis P Caamano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 6 Apr 2006 03:44:22 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> fork problem >> 120469 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. David Boyd) > > I started using cygserver and edited its config file to use 310 procs > instead of 62. In /e

Re: fork problem

"Luis P Caamano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 6 Apr 2006 03:44:22 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> fork problem >> 120469 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. David Boyd) > > I started using cygserver and edited its config file to use 310 procs > instead of 62. In /e

Re: fork problem

On 6 Apr 2006 03:44:22 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > fork problem > 120469 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. David Boyd) I started using cygserver and edited its config file to use 310 procs instead of 62. In /etc/cygserver.conf, I edited the following: # kern.srv.proc

Re: fork problem

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Wayne Willcox wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:19:49PM -0400, J. David Boyd wrote: > > > Since yesterday, (and, _of course_, I vehemently deny changing > > anything in my system), I've been plagued with > > > > bash: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable > > > > and an unad

RE: fork problem

On 05 April 2006 17:20, J. David Boyd wrote: > Since yesterday, (and, _of course_, I vehemently deny changing anything in > my system), I've been plagued with > > bash: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable > > and an unadorned bash prompt. > > If I type exit: > > Sometimes it continues on to

Re: fork problem

Out of resources on your system? On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:19:49PM -0400, J. David Boyd wrote: > > Since yesterday, (and, _of course_, I vehemently deny changing anything in my > system), I've been plagued with > > bash: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable > > and an unadorned bash prompt.

Re: fork problem in latest snapshot on Win98

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Christopher Faylor on 11/22/2005 8:17 AM: >>I'm getting a repeatable fork memory allocation error with snapshot >>20051116 on Win98, when trying to build CVS head of libtool; this was >>not a problem with 20051020. > > Is this problem sti

Re: fork problem in latest snapshot on Win98

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:18:06AM +, Eric Blake wrote: >I'm getting a repeatable fork memory allocation error with snapshot >20051116 on Win98, when trying to build CVS head of libtool; this was >not a problem with 20051020. Is this problem still in the latest snapshots? cgf -- Unsubscribe

Re: fork problem in latest snapshot on Win98

On Nov 17 04:18, Eric Blake wrote: > I'm getting a repeatable fork memory allocation error with snapshot > 20051116 on Win98, when trying to build CVS head of libtool; this was > not a problem with 20051020. > > $ make > cd . && /bin/sh ./config.status libtool > config.status: executing libtool co

Re: Fork problem (?) when bootstrapping gcc

My virtual memory settings are : min : 150 Mo max : 750 Mo I've also tried to update memory allowed to cygwin process as described somewhere in the documentation with the following command : regtool -i set /HKLM/Software/Cygnus\ Solutions/Cygwin/heap_chunk_in_mb 512 Finally I'm downloadi

Re: Fork problem (?) when bootstrapping gcc

On May 24 15:09, Dave Korn wrote: > Original Message > >From: Christophe Jaillet > >Sent: 23 May 2005 21:40 > > > Hi, > > > > from time to time, I'm bootstrapping gcc on my Win98 cygwin Box. > > > > From a few weeks, it ends after about 1 hour of bootstrap with the > > following message

RE: Fork problem (?) when bootstrapping gcc

Original Message >From: Christophe Jaillet >Sent: 23 May 2005 21:40 > Hi, > > from time to time, I'm bootstrapping gcc on my Win98 cygwin Box. > > From a few weeks, it ends after about 1 hour of bootstrap with the > following message : > > Win32 error 8 >From MSDN: 8 Not enough storage