Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:49:20 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Broken since 1.3.10, or earlier Message-ID: <20020717024920.GB24046@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20020717022743 DOT GA24046 AT redhat DOT com> <200207170245 DOT g6H2jGO28572 AT d-ip-129-15-78-125 DOT cs DOT ou DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200207170245.g6H2jGO28572@d-ip-129-15-78-125.cs.ou.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:45:16PM -0500, Jon Cast wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>bash makes assumptions that pids grow monotonically but that is not the >>case on windows. It's possible that you can run a program twice and >>get the same pid twice in a row -- especially on Windows 9x. I try to >>work around this in cygwin by keeping a certain number of process >>handles open, so that the pids won't be reused, but that still causes >>problems when you are fork/execing processes quickly. > >Just out of curiosity, why would bash care if pids grow monotonically? >(I know I can check the sources, but I'm lazy.) I assume that the bash developer is just mean. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/