This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: fork failure?
Dave Korn wrote:
> Charles Wilson wrote:
>> I have a hunch that an STC (okay, less-hellaciously-complicated test
>> case) could be developed, using just GNU pth and avoiding all the
>> libassuan/gnupg gobbledygook.
> Oh yuck. So there's this alternative user-land pthreads library that runs a
> scheduler within a single real machine thread, using some hairy sjlj hackery
> to perform context switches? That's kinda asking for trouble, isn't it?
Well, I haven't looked closely at it at all. I compiled it, it passed
its own testsuite, so I figured Great! moving on...
I was sorta under the impression that Pth acted as a wrapper around
pthreads if available, which seems relatively harmless. But maybe I was
If, instead, we're NOT actually using real threads, but instead PTH is
faking them all within a single thread...well, (a) my guess about the
innards of frok::child and main_tls/my_tls is wrong, and (b) that's
> Anyway, look here: pth_mctx.c line ~ 514
Well, we're not "windows" are we? I'll have to look, but I thought the
PTH configury was smart enough to treat cygwin as more unixy than that.
> Umm, yes. Poking around directly inside a sigjmp_buf. Wonder if the layout
> is actually what that code expects it to be or not? That's where I'd start
> looking next, anyway, if I was wondering why maybe things were randomly
> jumping to unexpected places ...
Oh gosh. I hope that code isn't actually "live" in the cygwin
build...yeah, messing around with jmp_bufs behind cygwin's -- or ANY
OS's -- back is just bound to screw up. Sigh.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple