Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Reini Urban wrote: > cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ > hangs forever. According to MSDN (): ...although you use the registry to collect performance data, the dat

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski > Sent: 13 July 2004 15:30 > To: Reini Urban > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Reini Urban wrote: > > > cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ > > hangs forever. > > According to MSDN > (

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

David, since that doesn't look too good, I tried it on NT4 SP6 as well as on XP SP1. I can't reproduce the below problems in either system. Does that only happen on W2K perhaps? Depending on the SP? Corinna On Jul 13 16:07, Dave Korn wrote: > Heh. Check this: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~> cd /pr

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > Sent: 13 July 2004 16:20 > David, > > since that doesn't look too good, I tried it on NT4 SP6 as well as > on XP SP1. I can't reproduce the below problems in either system. > Does that only happen on W2K perhaps?

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > > Sent: 13 July 2004 16:20 > > > David, > > > > since that doesn't look too good, I tried it on NT4 SP6 as well as > > on XP SP1. I can't reproduce the below problems in eit

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> -Original Message- > From: Igor Pechtchanski > Sent: 13 July 2004 16:41 > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > > > Sent: 13 July 2004 16:20 > > > > > David, > > > > > > since that doesn't look

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Igor Pechtchanski > > Sent: 13 July 2004 16:41 > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > > > > Sent: 13 July 2004 16:20

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:21:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > bufalloc = 0; > do > { > ==> bufalloc += 1000; > > I have a theory that the performance data may be added in chunks larger > than 1000 bytes, so the fhandler just can't keep up with the amount of > data

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:21:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > bufalloc = 0; > > do > > { > > ==> bufalloc += 1000; > > > > > I have a theory that the performance data may be added in chunks larger > > than 100

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:20:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > Perhaps bufalloc += max(bufalloc, 1000); Gack! I meant min() :) > Sorry, but no. This will do nothing for the original problem. The idea > was that at some point you need the rate of buffer size increase to > overtake the r

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:20:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > Perhaps bufalloc += max(bufalloc, 1000); > > Gack! I meant min() :) Ah, yes, that'd work (i.e., converge faster). We might want to eventually explore something in betwee

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:20:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > > Perhaps bufalloc += max(bufalloc, 1000); > > > > Gack! I meant min() :) > > Ah, yes, that'd work (i.e., converge fast

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:23:51PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:20:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > > > Perhaps bufalloc += max(bufalloc, 1000

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > [snip] > > I didn't get around to trying the actual cat instruction he quoted. > > I'll try it now: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~> cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA > > Segmentation fault (core dumped) >

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

Igor Pechtchanski schrieb: On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Reini Urban wrote: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs forever. According to MSDN (): ...although you use the registry to collect performance

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Reini Urban wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski schrieb: > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Reini Urban wrote: > > > >>cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ > >>hangs forever. > > > > According to MSDN > > (

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski > Sent: 14 July 2004 04:22 > Ok, the theory washed out. The code above is actually simply > buggy. When > RegQueryValueEx is called (2 lines below the arrow), the > "size" parameter > is uninitialized, so, in effe

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Jul 14 17:58, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski > > Sent: 14 July 2004 04:22 > > > Ok, the theory washed out. The code above is actually simply > > buggy. When > > RegQueryValueEx is called (2 lines below the arrow), the >

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jul 14 17:58, Dave Korn wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski > > > Sent: 14 July 2004 04:22 > > > > > Ok, the theory washed out. The code above is actually simply buggy. > > > When RegQuer

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

Since Dave is not subscribed to cygwin-developers anyway, I'll continue this here. More below. On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski > > Sent: 14 July 2004 04:22 > > > Ok, the theory washed out. The code above

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > [snip] > > In particular, the fact that you see a SEGV the second time round - > > which is what my analysis above demonstrates should happen if the size > > variable is NOT reinited each time round the loop

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> -Original Message- > From: Igor Pechtchanski > Sent: 14 July 2004 19:30 > > I concur; that is bad code. The variable unambiguously needs > > initialising, and since RegQueryValueEx damages it, it needs to be > > re-set each time round the loop. > > Not quite true. Turns out RegQue

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Jul 14 14:29, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > Since Dave is not subscribed to cygwin-developers anyway, I'll continue > this here. More below. Ok. That's why I wrote "mildly OT". > Can't for a while. Can you do me a favor and submit this as a fix, if you > have a copyright assignment for Cygwin?

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > [some comments snipped below] > > -Original Message- > > From: Igor Pechtchanski > > Sent: 14 July 2004 19:30 > > > > > However, the fix is not as simple as inserting a "size = > > > > bufalloc;" just before the RegQueryValueEx. When I do that, I ge

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> However, the fix is not as simple as inserting a "size = > bufalloc;" just before the RegQueryValueEx. When I do that, > I get a SIGSEGV in the guts of iasperf.dll, which I have yet > to track down. This happens on the second iteration, FWIW, > with buffer increment of 1000. I'm going to i

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Chris January wrote: > > However, the fix is not as simple as inserting a "size = > > bufalloc;" just before the RegQueryValueEx. When I do that, > > I get a SIGSEGV in the guts of iasperf.dll, which I have yet > > to track down. This happens on the second iteration, FWIW, >

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

I have no clue if anyone thought to bring this up but how about telling us what combination shell and console that you use. Example: I use rxvt and bash combination (rxvt is console / bash is shell) and there are no problems -- it just echos what I typed if it can't access what I want. If I start

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

I don't think it matters. I get the same exact results with both sh and bash in any one of the cmd window, xterm, or rxvt. FWIW, the output below was with cmd/bash. You *are* trying the latest snapshot, right? I'm not sure I understand what "there are no problems -- it just echos what I typed i

Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

See below for responses On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:13:32 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > I don't think it matters. I get the same exact results with both sh and > bash in any one of the cmd window, xterm, or rxvt. FWIW, the output below > was with cmd/bash. You *are* trying the latest snaps

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> Yes, I'm still seeing the segfault in the latest snapshot, > but only when run under gdb or strace. Here are some sample tests: > > $ cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA/\@ > e.out > cat: /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA/@: No such file or > directory $ # no segfault $ strace -o cat_

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Chris January wrote: > > Yes, I'm still seeing the segfault in the latest snapshot, > > but only when run under gdb or strace. Here are some sample tests: > > > > $ cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA/\@ > e.out > > cat: /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA/@: No such fi

RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> > > Yes, I'm still seeing the segfault in the latest > snapshot, but only > > > when run under gdb or strace. Here are some sample tests: > > > > > > $ cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA/\@ > e.out > > > cat: /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA/@: No such file or > > > directory $ # no

[OT] RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > Sent: 14 July 2004 18:15 > On Jul 14 17:58, Dave Korn wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski > > > Sent: 14 July 2004 04:22 > > > > > Ok, the theory washed ou

RE: [OT] RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Dave Korn > Sent: 14 July 2004 18:26 > Well, the thread's more-or-less over now, I would have thought. Heh. It occurs to me to correct that typo while we're at it. Should have done that first time round. [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/

Re: [OT] RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:28:19PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >>-Original Message- >>From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Dave Korn >>Sent: 14 July 2004 18:26 > >>Well, the thread's more-or-less over now, I would have thought. > >Heh. It occurs to me to correct that typo while we're at it. Should

Developer's list archive policy - was Re: [OT] RE: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs

At 01:25 PM 7/14/2004, you wrote: > Still, I've sent in a subscription request anyway [Note Cc!]. I've never >paid much attention to that list before. I notice that even the list >archive is closed if you aren't subbed - surely that's a bit WJM? I can >understand having subscribers-only posti