This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: bug#14569: 24.3.50; bootstrap fails on Cygwin
- From: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:01:54 -0700
- Subject: Re: bug#14569: 24.3.50; bootstrap fails on Cygwin
- References: <51B78346 dot 3050600 at cornell dot edu> <FA9D25B7-3D1F-40CC-AA6E-5347E8112CA4 at swipnet dot se> <E143AC75-8C2B-4A59-81F6-571B9D4EEF13 at swipnet dot se> <2E06A322-530C-4AA2-9282-6D2E48B1D194 at swipnet dot se> <51B8BEFE dot 6070309 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <51B8D5ED dot 1010407 at alice dot it> <C679A2B2-0264-4DDA-B900-5B90BE7CF1E9 at swipnet dot se> <51BA03CA dot 4080804 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <BEC82502-E9FD-4F8E-B91E-F680F6885FB2 at swipnet dot se> <51BB56CB dot 7030209 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <20130614180359 dot GA5295 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
On 06/14/2013 11:03 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> You pointed to an archived mail messages which implies that was fixed
> more than a year ago. What makes you think it is still a problem?
The message I pointed to <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-05/msg00472.html>
> Testcase signal/kill:
> Signals may or may not reach the correct thread with 1.7.12-1 and newer.
Confirmed. I think the reason is that we only have a single event to
signal that a POSIX signal arrived instead of a per-thread event, but
I'm not sure. This is cgf's domain so I leave it at that for now.
I interpreted this to mean "the existence of the bug is confirmed,
here's why the bug occurs, and I'll let cgf deal with it".
I didn't see any followup message where cgf (is that you?)
dealt with it. My apologies if I misinterpreted the email.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple