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: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:13:05 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Quick testfeedback...
Message-ID: <20010911221305.A1628@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F164 AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F164@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 11:52:50AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:04 PM
>> To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
>> Subject: Re: Quick testfeedback...
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 11:43:31AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>> >This is broadcast.c:
>> 
>> So, if I read that correctly, sleep can be called from a thread.
>> 
>> I checked in a patch that should fix the 
>> call_signal_handler_now SIGSEGV
>> but I don't exactly understand why a signal handler was being called
>> here at all.  It doesn't look like anything in broadcast.c should be
>> generating a signal unless there is another 
>> SIGSEGV/SIGBUS/SIGLL lurking
>> elsewhere.
>> 
>> If that is the case, then the signal handler bug may have been masking
>> another problem.  With luck, my checkin will allow us to see what the
>> problem is.  Or Robert will tell me why there should have 
>> been a signal
>> generated in broadcast.c...
>
>There shouldn't have been any errors from pthread, certainly not because
>sleep() was called :|. I've never seen broadcast fail once the first
>version was up and running...
>
>Which is why I was so mystified and concerned about it.

I wasn't saying that there were even errors, necessarily.  I thought that
there might have been some signal generated.  It could be a harmless signal
like SIGUSR1 or SIGCHLD or something.

cgf