Re: cygwin bughunt (snapshot)

["David Dindorp" <ddi at dubex dot dk>]

Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>>>David Dindorp wrote:
>>>>Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
>>>>Has anyone experienced something similar?

>Being precise is one thing you could do.

I tried my best.

>You could also provide cygcheck output as is
>suggested by http://cygwin.com/problems.html.

cygcheck from the test box is attached.
I thought it wouldn't be relevant, since I included all version
numbers.  Also, I modify the environment as the first thing
when the script runs:
SET CYGWIN=binmode check_case:relaxed codepage:ansi \
           envcache notitle strip_title notty nontsec
And also set PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH to point to the Cygwin 'bin'
directory.

>Also, providing simple test cases which reproduce the problem would
>help.

I really tried, but so far have not been able to produce a simple test
case.  My best guess right now is that it only occurs when load is
high, or when the right timing conditions apply.

I thought it was obvious that I include test cases for every bug where
I'm able to produce one, especially since I posted one last week.

Actually, I can't find the mail in the mailing list archives right now,
although it is in my 'sent items'.  Nobody replied to it either.

Maybe it got blocked because of the attachments - it was a .sh script
and a .bat script.  Do you by any chance have some really dumb spam
filter in place that blocks anything named eg. ".bat" ? :-)
Subject of e-mail was "testing snapshot", it mentioned 3 other bugs
(something related to 'grep', something with sync_with_child).

I'll try resending it, let me know if you'd rather try and find it
in your (?) spam blocker.

>I just wasted some time trying to reproduce your environment
>since I assumed that you'd provided a script which could easily
>reproduce the problem and that this was a problem which was specific
>to the snapshot.

I'm truly sorry.

It is sort of specific to the snapshot, since the problem occurs at a
different rate in older versions.

>Anyway, this sounds a lot like the bash problem which has been
>discussed here over the last several months (most heavily in the
>October time frame).  If you aren't running bash-2.05b-17 then
>that's probably your problem.

bash 3.0 is not good enough?

I went through the archives for October (anything related to "bash"),
but couldn't find anything that seems related to me.  Would you mind
pointing me in the right direction (subject, link, anything)?

Attachment: cygcheck.txt
Description: cygcheck.txt

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