Preremove/postinstall scripts fail with snapshot installed

[Ken Brown]

On 2/13/2011 12:20 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> Works for me on W7 64 bit with KB 2393802 installed.

BTW, when I said that it works, I was talking about the original bug 
that I reported about preremove/postinstall scripts.  But I just now 
tested removing an in-use directory, and I was surprised by what 
happened.  Maybe I just don't understand how this is supposed to work. 
I have two bash shells open, with prompts $1 and $2.

In shell 1:

$1 mkdir /tmp/foo
$1 cd /tmp/foo

In shell 2:

$2 rmdir /tmp/foo
$2 ls /tmp/foo
ls: cannot access /tmp/foo: No such file or directory

Back to shell 1:

$1 ls
       0 [main] bash 2220 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=6109352A
eax=00000000 ebx=0075A0E8 ecx=77B83442 edx=00732C14 esi=00000001 
edi=007309E8
ebp=0028CD08 esp=0028CCC0 program=C:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe, pid 2220, 
thread main
cs=0023 ds=002B es=002B fs=0053 gs=002B ss=002B
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
0028CD08  6109352A  (61241A3C, 00000001, 00000000, 0028CD94)
0028CD28  6109608F  (61241A3C, 0028CE64, 610068B0, 61004AF9)
0028CD58  61006B31  (00000000, 0028CD94, 610068B0, 7EFDE000)
End of stack trace

[repeated many more times...]

15641011 [main] bash 4588 exception::handle: Exception: 
STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=6109352A
eax=00000000 ebx=0081A0E8 ecx=77B83442 edx=007F2C14 esi=00000001 
edi=007F09E8
ebp=0028CD08 esp=0028CCC0 program=C:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe, pid 4588, 
thread main
cs=0023 ds=002B es=002B fs=0053 gs=002B ss=002B
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
0028CD08  6109352A  (61241A3C, 00000001, 00000000, 0028CD94)
0028CD28  6109608F  (61241A3C, 0028CE64, 610068B0, 61004AF9)
0028CD58  61006B31  (00000000, 0028CD94, 610068B0, 7EFDE000)
End of stack trace
15643878 [main] -bash 2804 fork: child -1 - died waiting for longjmp 
before initialization, retry 0, exit code 0x600, errno 11
-bash: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable

Is this to be expected?  I admit that it's stupid to try to list a cwd 
that no longer exists, but I would have expected a friendlier response.

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple