RE: Bash returns incorrect process status

Attached is a "simpler & better" patch to bash, replacing the one in 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

RE: Re: Bash is very, very stable (was: Bash returns incorrect process status)

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 lis

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

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

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

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 door

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

At 10:51 AM 9/21/2004, you wrote: >> "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 b

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

> "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 ori

RE: Bash returns incorrect process status

> -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 whe

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

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

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

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 input.

RE: Bash returns incorrect process status

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". >> "reuse

RE: Bash returns incorrect process status

> 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

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

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 f

RE: Bash returns incorrect process status

(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 http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/ms

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

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

RE: Bash returns incorrect process status

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

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

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

Re: Bash returns incorrect process 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

Re: Bash returns incorrect process status

> 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