Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-17 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jul 16 13:36, Ti Strga wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > Increasing the size of the buffer should have been enough to fix the > > problem but, when possible, I like to use two forms of protection when I > > fix a bug. > > I recall someone on a project here doing a bugfix with a commit log

Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-16 Thread Ti Strga
Christopher Faylor wrote: > Increasing the size of the buffer should have been enough to fix the > problem but, when possible, I like to use two forms of protection when I > fix a bug. I recall someone on a project here doing a bugfix with a commit log like: -mm-dd The Guy's Name Fi

Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-16 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:44:25PM +, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: >From: Christopher Faylor >>On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:05:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>Yes, I saw that, but I can't duplicate the problem with that command >>>sequence. >> >>I took a stab at another change which may ameli

RE: pipe handling errors

2014-07-16 Thread Nellis, Kenneth
From: Christopher Faylor >On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:05:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>Yes, I saw that, but I can't duplicate the problem with that command sequence. > >I took a stab at another change which may ameliorate the problem. Please try >the latest snapshot. Indeed, with this s

Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:05:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Yes, I saw that, but I can't duplicate the problem with that command sequence. I took a stab at another change which may ameliorate the problem. Please try the latest snapshot. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/p

Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 08:40:32PM +, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: >From: Christopher Faylor >>On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:17:48PM +, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: >>>From: Nellis, Kenneth >>> Well, I'm getting different results with the latest snapshot. Instead of getting the error message, I

RE: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Nellis, Kenneth
From: Christopher Faylor >On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:17:48PM +, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: >>From: Nellis, Kenneth >> >>> Well, I'm getting different results with the latest snapshot. >>> Instead of getting the error message, I'm getting a hang for maybe a minute >>> before it continues. >>> >>>

Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:17:48PM +, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: >From: Nellis, Kenneth > >> Well, I'm getting different results with the latest snapshot. >> Instead of getting the error message, I'm getting a hang for maybe a minute >> before it continues. >> >> I used the following command to

RE: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Nellis, Kenneth
At the risk of annoying folks uninterested in this problem, here is a simpler test case: Cygwin64> date; seq 1 | wc -l; date Tue Jul 15 15:30:03 EDT 2014 1 Tue Jul 15 15:31:03 EDT 2014 Cygwin64> The output ("1") occurs immediately and then the hang for precisely one minute before the

RE: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Nellis, Kenneth
From: Nellis, Kenneth > Well, I'm getting different results with the latest snapshot. > Instead of getting the error message, I'm getting a hang for maybe a minute > before it continues. > > I used the following command to encourage a failure: > > clear; for f in $(find */Debug -name '*Subsyst

RE: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Nellis, Kenneth
From: Corinna Vinschen > Hi Kenneth, > > On Jul 15 13:50, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > > From: Corinna Vinschen > > > On Jul 14 17:40, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > > > > When running a bash pipeline using the latest 64-bit packages, I > > > > occasionally get output like the following: > > > > > > > > 1

Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Corinna Vinschen
Hi Kenneth, On Jul 15 13:50, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > From: Corinna Vinschen > > On Jul 14 17:40, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > > > When running a bash pipeline using the latest 64-bit packages, I > > > occasionally get output like the following: > > > > > > 1479561950 [waitproc] -bash 1 sig_send

RE: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Nellis, Kenneth
From: Corinna Vinschen > On Jul 14 17:40, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > > When running a bash pipeline using the latest 64-bit packages, I > > occasionally get output like the following: > > > > 1479561950 [waitproc] -bash 1 sig_send: error sending signal 20, > > pipe handle 0x2710, nb 132, packs

Re: pipe handling errors

2014-07-15 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jul 14 17:40, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > When running a bash pipeline using the latest 64-bit packages, > I occasionally get output like the following: > > 1479561950 [waitproc] -bash 1 sig_send: error sending signal 20, pipe > handle 0x2710, nb 132, packsize 0, Win32 error 109 > > That on

pipe handling errors

2014-07-14 Thread Nellis, Kenneth
When running a bash pipeline using the latest 64-bit packages, I occasionally get output like the following: 1479561950 [waitproc] -bash 1 sig_send: error sending signal 20, pipe handle 0x2710, nb 132, packsize 0, Win32 error 109 That one was the result of: strings | grep | sort | uniq -