Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 00:47:53 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: I know CVS is hosed (this time for sure)
Message-ID: <20010908004753.N17245@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygdev <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010906113843 DOT A30174 AT redhat DOT com> <20010906154534 DOT A32372 AT redhat DOT com> <20010906210535 DOT A8264 AT redhat DOT com> <20010907121943 DOT A27950 AT redhat DOT com> <20010907190951 DOT H17245 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010907173823 DOT A4187 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010907173823.A4187@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 05:38:23PM -0400

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 05:38:23PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 07:09:51PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>Did this patch work?  It seems to for me.
> >>
> >>The last we heard, another similar patch to this one didn't work for
> >>Corinna.
> >>
> >>I'd like to get confirmation that this one works ok.
> >
> >Sorry, it doesn't work for me.  I tried the plain version from CVS and
> >the same including the cygheap.cc patch which you've send here.  My
> >testcase is a `make' in a Cygwin build tree.  This testcase crashes now
> >on a regular basis in /bin/sh.  I'm getting the following backtrace in
> >gdb with and without your yesterday's patch in cygheap.cc:
> 
> The problem was, as I suspected, due to the zombies allocation.  The
> problem is that allocating the zombies array only when needed caused the
> heap to grow while the program was in the process of forking.  So,
> when the parent tried to copy the heap to the child during a fork, the
> heap was larger in the parent than in the child.  Boom.

When I read the above description I got a bit pale first... heap grows
while program forks...

> AFAICT, this also had nothing to do with moving buckets to cygheap.  I'm
> not sure how that would have affected anything unless the alignment in
> the data segment caused by having buckets there threw off the heap just
> enough so that it masked the fork problem.

Yeah, the reproducable bucket case was apparently just a coincidence.

> Corinna and Egor, can you verify if this checkin fixes things.

That looks awful good now.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.