Regression (last snapshot)

[Ken Brown]

On 7/29/2019 9:47 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 29 13:18, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 7/29/2019 4:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jul 27 15:24, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2019 6:21 AM, Houder wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 22:12:43, Ken Brown  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/22/2019 2:47 PM, Houder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The specific regression as reported, has gone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 64-@@ uname -a
>>>>>>> CYGWIN_NT-6.1 Seven 3.1.0s(0.339/5/3) 2019-07-22 16:43 x86_64 Cygwin
>>>>>>> 64-@@ ls -lL <(grep bash .bashrc)
>>>>>>> pr-------- 1 Henri None 0 Jul 22 20:36 /dev/fd/63
>>>>>>
>>>>> Over all the behavior has simularity w/ the error reported by David Karr:
>>>>>
>>>>>        https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2019-07/msg00150.html
>>>>>        ( Piping input from subprocess loses track of temp file )
>>>> [...]
>>>> Repeating this under the 20190722 or 20190725 snapshots gave slightly worse
>>>> results (close to 500 errors).  Using my own unoptimized build of cygwin1.dll,
>>>> the error count went up to about 650.
>>>
>>> I just tried this myself and I can't reproduce the problem.  1000 runs,
>>> no error.
>>
>> Interesting.  And you ran this under X11 in an xterm window?
> 
> I didn't, but I just did and the result is the same, no errors.
> 
>>>> I tried running under gdb, but I couldn't get grep to fail.  More precisely, I
>>>> didn't see an error message from grep.  Every run looked like this:
>>>>
>>>> $ gdb bash
>>>> GNU gdb (GDB) (Cygwin 8.2.1-1) 8.2.1
>>>> [...]
>>>> (gdb) r -c 'ls -lL <(grep bash .bashrc)'
>>>> Starting program: /usr/bin/bash -c 'ls -lL <(grep bash .bashrc)'
>>>> [...]
>>>> pr-------- 1 kbrown None 0 2019-07-27 11:07 /dev/fd/63
>>>> [...]
>>>> [Inferior 1 (process 21712) exited normally]
>>>>
>>>> It would be better to be able to debug ls and/or grep, but I don't know how to
>>>> get to subprocesses in gdb.  And I think I have to start with 'gdb bash' in
>>>> order for the process substitution to happen.
>>>
>>> Yeah, subprocess debugging is a problem in GDB.  Given how this works,
>>> you can at least take grep out of the picture.  Bash is doing all the
>>> lifting, so it's just bash and ls.   Did you try to reproduce this under
>>> strace?
>>
>> Yes, but there I get an error (even under mintty) for a different reason:
>>
>> $ strace -o trace.out ls -lL <(grep bash .bashrc)
>> ls: cannot access '/dev/fd/63': No such file or directory
> 
> No, please run bash:
> 
>    strace -o trace.out bash -c 'ls -lL <(grep bash .bashrc)'
> 
> Otherwise there's no process actually creating the pipe, given the <()
> expression is a bash expression.

Yes, of course.  I should have realized this since it's exactly what I did under 
gdb.  Anyway, the result is the same as it was under gdb: If I run the command 
under strace, I don't see the broken pipe error.

Is it possible that debugging causes an fd to the read end of the pipe to stay 
open longer, thereby preventing the error?

Ken
 ТÒÐÐ¥&ö&ÆVÒ&W÷'G3¢‡GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒ÷&ö&ÆV×2æ‡FÖÀФd¢‡GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒöfðФFö7VÖVçFF–ö㢇GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒöFö72æ‡FÖÀÐ¥Vç7V'67&–&R–æfó¢‡GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒöÖÂò7Vç7V'67&–&R×6–×ÆPÐ Ð