Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:17:36 +0400
From:	egor duda <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
Reply-To:	egor duda <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Organization:	deo
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
Message-ID:	<22157359901.20020830101736@logos-m.ru>
To:	Christopher Faylor <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: 1.3.13?
In-Reply-To:	<20020830032032.GA29946@redhat.com>
References:	<20020804195150 DOT GA3381 AT redhat DOT com>
	<110679106062 DOT 20020805171034 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20020830032032 DOT GA29946 AT redhat DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0

Hi!

Friday, 30 August, 2002 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:

CF> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 05:10:34PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>>Sunday, 04 August, 2002 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>>CF> I'd like to release 1.3.13.  The outstanding issues that I am aware of
>>CF> are Conrad's UNIX domain socket patch and Thomas's pthread patches.
>>
>>CF> Is there anything else?
>>
>>Current tty code has a bug when canonical mode is turned off, vmin==0
>> and vtime > 0. The patch seems obvious -- just remove the code
>>that specially sets waiting time to infinite if vmin==0. I'm just
>>wondering what made me write this lines of code, and until i fully
>>understand the reason (it might be simple brain overheating, after all
>>:), i'm somewhat reluctant to make this change.

CF> Did you ever convince yourself that this was a reasonable fix, Egor?
CF> The vmin and vtime stuff has always made my head hurt so I can't offer
CF> much help, I'm afraid.

I vaguely remember some sort of discussion about possibility of
removing fhandler::ready_for_read() in _read() call before calling
actual fhandler::read() if the latter is interruptible. Do i
understand things right? Calling ready_for_read() shouldn't be
necessary in such cases, will increase performance a bit and greatly
simplify the logic dealing with vmin and vtime. Was there any plans to
add 'virtual read_is_interruptible()' call to fhandler?

CF> I would like to get a new release out the door, though.  Especially since
CF> I need to get something new released to accommodate gcc 3.2.

Have anybody else seen a problem with 'expect' blocking in debugging version
of cygwin while trying to add_handle()? I hope that it wo

Egor.            mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

- Raw text -