[Patch]: Setting the winpid in pinfo
Sat Sep 11 02:47:00 GMT 2004
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:29:35PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 12:15 AM 9/8/2004 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:26:02PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>Also, on WinME, simply holding down ^C in the bash shell will
>>>cause a crash (thanks to Errol Smith)
>>>~> 142 [sig] BASH 1853149 handle_threadlist_exception:
>>>handle_threadlist_exception called with threadlist_ix -1
>>> 1751 [sig] BASH 1853149 handle_exceptions: Exception:
>>>Any idea about what's happening? I have been unable to
>>>make any progress.
>>I'll see if I can duplicate the problem with VMware. That's the only
>>WinME system that I have available to me currently.
>Should we appeal for the donation of a small laptop? It wouldn't
>crowd your office much. BTW, I keep my Win95 in my guestroom,
>so my guests can check their e-mail.
>Here are 2 other small changes.
>When killing the (system stressing) program I used to track the
>fork bug, I noticed that it occasionally leaves stray processes
>behind, as in
>821 49315459 1 557307 4245651837 0 740 20:50:10 /c/HOME/PIERRE/A
>0x821 = PID_INITIALIZING + PID_ORPHANED + PID_IN_USE
>What's happening is that there is a race between the winpids
>scanning in kill_pgrp and the creation of new processes.
>The patch in fork.cc improves the situation by exiting
>children immediately when the parent dies during a fork.
>Also a ^C immediately terminates processes that are initializing.
>That is not desirable for processes created by Cygwin processes.
>The patch in exceptions.cc changes that.
I don't understand. You're removing an exit on a CTRL-C in
exceptions.cc and essentially adding it to fork.cc. How is that an
improvement? Why aren't both parent and child going away when they see a
CTRL-C already? If the child process has not become fully awake yet
it should just exit now.
More information about the Cygwin-patches