On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:57:26 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> So could someone who got the _successful_ run of sig_bug.exe with recently
>> (>1.5.7-1) releases or snapshots of cygwin1.dll send it
>> (sig_bug.exe) to my personal e-mail?
>
> Well, here you go; source as well, just in case you have mor
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Valery A. Frolov
> Sent: 21 September 2004 22:52
> I've checked it and got the same bad result (crash) on 2000,
> XP and Win98.
>
> I've installed cygwin bundle for compilation of sig_bug.c on XP, compiled
> sig_bug.c to sig_bug.exe
> Maybe the operating system is the essence. I've always tried it on NT 4.0
> WS SP6a+hotfixes. Tomorrow I'll check it (the same executable) on 2000/XP.
I've checked it and got the same bad result (crash) on 2000, XP and Win98.
I've installed cygwin bundle for compilation of sig_bug.c on XP, comp
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:35:48 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> FWIW, I tried it ten times without error. I have it running in a loop
> now. If it dies, I'll fix the problem.
But I had _no_ one successful run at all.
Maybe the operating system is the essence. I've always tried it on NT 4.0
WS SP
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 20 September 2004 15:36
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 11:17:28PM -0700, Yitzchak
> Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:08:31AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>No SEGV for me. -lpthread didn't seem n
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 11:17:28PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:08:31AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>No SEGV for me. -lpthread didn't seem necessary. I'm using a version
>>of the cygwin1.dll built from CVS sources on 20041407.
>
>did you try it more than once? I
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:08:31AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> No SEGV for me. -lpthread didn't seem necessary. I'm using a version of
> the cygwin1.dll built from CVS sources on 20041407.
Wow, that's a lot more advanced than any snapshot I've seen. I'm
curious to know what version it reports.
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Valery A. Frolov
> Sent: 16 September 2004 20:15
> >> And after while I've got (IMHO) a little test source (attached) to
> >> reproduce the problem.
> >
> > Can anyone confirm this problem?
>
> So, after week of silence I can make th
>> And after while I've got (IMHO) a little test source (attached) to
>> reproduce the problem.
>
> Can anyone confirm this problem?
So, after week of silence I can make the decision that this problem has
been happened only for me (because no one has confirmed it). Anyway,
many many thanks for al
Hello,
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:43:50 +0300, Valery A. Frolov wrote:
> And after while I've got (IMHO) a little test source (attached) to
> reproduce the problem.
Can anyone confirm this problem?
I've tested my testcase source (see previous letter) with cygwin1.dll
1.5.11-1, gcc 3.3.3-3, binutils-
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:11:56PM +0300, Valery A. Frolov wrote:
>In short:
>First signal delivery on call of pthread_kill(tid, SIGUSR1) works fine
>but second one delivers signal with _delay_ and _twice_, and then my
>own daemon crash. This is on cygwin1.dll 1.5.10-3 and snapshot of
>2004-08-21.
> Whole trace files (strace7.log & straceB.log) are attached to this letter.
Heh... Forgot attach it.
WBR,
Valery
13:03:41 [main] yolopd 161 sigproc_init: process/signal handling enabled(1)
13:03:41 [main] yolopd 161 wait_for_sigthread: wait_sig_inited 0x54
13:03:41 [main] yolopd 161 subproc_ini
12 matches
Mail list logo
