Attached is a simpler better patch to bash, replacing
the one in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/msg00882.html
It's simpler because it slightly changes how bash works to
prevent the pid reuse problem, instead of adding a layer to
fix it. It's better because it also fixes the bug reported
in
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Hi Phil,
The symptoms are consistent with the pid reuse issue,
although it is not common on NT4, AFAIK.
A patched version is available as
http://xx.xxx.xxx//bash.exe
Please keep that url private.
If you try it, let me know (or the list) the
Dolton Tony AB wrote:
I've noticed that bash doesn't get issued too often.
It doesn't for three reasons:
1. the maintainer for Cygwin (that would be me) is very busy
2. The current version of Bash is very, very stable
3. I'm hesitant (reluctant, even) to let a new release of Bash go out
the
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:31:34PM -0400, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
Dolton Tony AB wrote:
I've noticed that bash doesn't get issued too often.
It doesn't for three reasons:
1. the maintainer for Cygwin (that would be me) is very busy
2. The current version of Bash is very, very stable
3. I'm
This patch also fixes a long-standing problem that I've had:
My .bash_profile is rather complex (actually, it sources .bashrc,
which is where most of the complexity is), and at the end it runs a
program called `keychain'. That program always does some output and
sometimes does some
At 10:32 AM 9/21/2004, you wrote:
This patch also fixes a long-standing problem that I've had:
My .bash_profile is rather complex (actually, it sources .bashrc,
which is where most of the complexity is), and at the end it runs a
program called `keychain'. That program always does some
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Larry Hall
Sent: 21 September 2004 15:39
At 10:32 AM 9/21/2004, you wrote:
This patch also fixes a long-standing problem that I've had:
My .bash_profile is rather complex (actually, it sources .bashrc,
which is where most of
Larry == Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Larry You forgot to include the patch.
Actually, I was attempting to follow up to an existing post that
contained the patch; I assumed that it would be easy to navigate from
my article to that previous one. In any case, here is the original
At 10:51 AM 9/21/2004, you wrote:
Larry == Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR
Larry You forgot to include the patch.
Actually, I was attempting to follow up to an existing post that
contained the patch; I assumed that it would be easy to
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
FWIW, attached is a patch to bash that may improve its
behavior on Cygwin.
The idea is that when a new process is stored in the memory array, any
existing process with the same pid is marked reused.
reused processes
are never considered when searching for a process
On 16 Sep, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
But bash seems to keep at least CHILD_MAX jobs, each one of them possibly
with many (unbounded) processes. It is very easy to produce situations
where bash keeps track of thousands of pids. Many of those pids (e.g. the
first ones in pipelines) will
(Sorry if this doesn't appear in the right place - I'm still unable to
subscribe to the list and had to bodge a reply.)
I would just like to say that the patch specified in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/msg00783.html fixes the problem that I
reported in
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Dolton Tony AB wrote:
(Sorry if this doesn't appear in the right place - I'm still unable to
subscribe to the list and had to bodge a reply.)
I would just like to say that the patch specified in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/msg00783.html fixes
Do you see the patch kicking in, the Found old pid... message on stderr?
Yes, I get lots of these messages, when I used to get lots of errors.
Further analysis of my old strace output shows that the errors occurred when
pids had been reused.
There is more to the story...
I'm fairly sure that
At 09:51 AM 9/17/2004 +0200, Peter Ekberg wrote:
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
FWIW, attached is a patch to bash that may improve its
behavior on Cygwin.
The idea is that when a new process is stored in the memory array, any
existing process with the same pid is marked reused.
reused processes
Is there some reason why we aren't discussing this on the mailing
list?
Which mailing list? I'm not on the cygwin list.
POSIX shells are required to remember at least CHILD_MAX (but
optionally more) process statuses. There is a gray area about whether
or not the user can query the status
Chet Ramey wrote:
POSIX shells are required to remember at least CHILD_MAX (but
optionally more) process statuses. There is a gray area about whether
or not the user can query the status of those processes, implying that
once the status of a background or foreground job has been
At 02:50 PM 9/16/2004 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
POSIX shells are required to remember at least CHILD_MAX (but
optionally more) process statuses. There is a gray area about whether
or not the user can query the status of those processes, implying that
once the status of a background or
18 matches
Mail list logo
