This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Please try the latest snapshot -- it is close to cygwin 1.5.6
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 09:13:36PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >At 05:59 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>I added strace debugging. You can use that as a clue for what I was
> >>talking about and make it visible if you can't run exim under strace.
> >I put a try_to_debug(1). Waiting for something to happen.
> Thanks, for debugging this but that wasn't specifically what I was
> talking about. If you go back and read the message, you'll see that I
> was talking about your 'get_proc_lock' problem.
Yes, I put the try_to_debug just after the
system_printf ("couldn't get proc lock
By the way, I never saw any problems with exim on NT4 either...
> >I looked at your latest change in syscalls.cc.
> >It seems to me that setsid should simply call close all the time if (cygheap->ctty)
> >and let close() take care of usecount.
> I had already checked in a change to this effect but I missed...
The latest change I saw was not decrementing usecount at all, so it wouldn't do
the right thing if inetd closes the tty after calling setsid
> >Ditto in pinfo::set_ctty where a problem similar to the one you
> >addressed also exists.
> this. Thanks. I've checked in a new fix as well as a similar change
> for close_all_files.
> >I don't think that will take care of everything, but I can't follow
> >what's happening when tracing sh -c inetd
> I tried the current CVS version and I don't see any stray tty garbage
> with inetd. I never tried this with an older snapshot, however, so I
> don't know if I would have been lucky before. I did try a much simpler
> test case which worked incorrectly with CYGWIN=tty and correctly after
> today's initial setsid change.
OK, I'll run cvs update.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html