On Feb 24 08:16, Thomas Wolff wrote: > Lasse Collin had written. > >... the possibility of EINTR is mentioned for specific commands and F_SETFL > >isn't among them. > A subtle and maybe minor but valid objection. > > Am 23.02.2015 um 13:23 schrieb Corinna Vinschen: > >On Feb 23 11:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>On Feb 22 22:07, Lasse Collin wrote: > >>>Alternative idea: Would there be a significant downside if Cygwin > >>>remembered if non-blocking mode was enabled at some point and close() > >>>would use that flag instead of the current (non)blocking status to > >>>determine if the background thread hack should be used? > >>No, that should be doable with very minor effort. > >That's still an option, of course. > I think that sounds like a solution.
I applied a matching patch for this: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2015-q1/msg00079.html Please give it a try. If you're not set up to build your own Cygwin DLL, I will generate a new developer snapshot soon, probably today or tomorrow. Btw., did you have a chance to test the pthread_join change from https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-02/msg00710.html in the meantime? Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpEbau4wB2fU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
