On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
That's why I culled down my large application to a small Python
script
which exhibited the bug and which I submitted to the list, along
with my
cygcheck -srv and the error messages that Python gave me.
So your test case is currently a small Python script, plus *all* of
Python. I'm not downplaying your effort in producing the test
case, just
explaining Jason's statement about "isolating the problem".
If the bug is in Python... which it seems to be since I haven't heard
(nor found in the archives with my pitiful searches) of anyone else
having a problem. If I take out one of the triplets of Python
threads, the problem doesn't seem to manifest. It sure feels to me
like trying to guess how much of Python I need to be concerned with
is no less of a big problem... I will try to find an even smaller
Python program though, that might help. I had sort of hoped to get
someone from the cygwin Python port interested, but apparently I'm
using Python (on cygwin at least) in a way few others are...
??? A minimal C test case for a python bug... I'm confused.
Python is written in C. Since the bug is to be fixed in Python,
isolating
the part of the C code that exhibits the problem would help fixing
the bug.
Or maybe it is in the pure Python code making some bogus assumptions
about the underlying layers (implemented in C or not)...
I will submit my tbp (in a different form) to the official python
release for inclusion in their self-tests, and hopefully that'll
prevent
_this_ bug from showing up further, whether on Cygwin or some other
platform..
Yep, that's why it's good to have the small Python test case as
well. :-)
Igor
Thanks, I will be striving to secure an even smaller Python test
case, at least to start. :-)
--Doug
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
