RE: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-17 Thread Robb, Sam
> >>(where I'm assuming that 'delete tmp' is the proper way to > deal with a > >>pointer returned by io_stream::open()...) > > You cannot directly delete tmp. This is delegated to the > stream provider. That's what I was afraid of. Leaving a returned pointer hanging around is such an obvious p

Re: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-17 Thread Max Bowsher
Reini Urban wrote: Max Bowsher schrieb: Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: ...is it true? Is very definitely true. I've committed a fix, Ooops, no I haven't, it's still in my WC. but as I began to test the new setup for release, I discovered a regression since 2.427 (I finally reproduced

Re: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-17 Thread Reini Urban
Max Bowsher schrieb: Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: ...is it true? Is very definitely true. I've committed a fix, Ooops, no I haven't, it's still in my WC. but as I began to test the new setup for release, I discovered a regression since 2.427 (I finally reproduced the "Unregistered

Re: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-17 Thread Max Bowsher
Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: ...is it true? Is very definitely true. I've committed a fix, Ooops, no I haven't, it's still in my WC. but as I began to test the new setup for release, I discovered a regression since 2.427 (I finally reproduced the "Unregistered URL scheme"), and a f

Re: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-17 Thread Max Bowsher
Christopher Faylor wrote: ...is it true? Is very definitely true. I've committed a fix, but as I began to test the new setup for release, I discovered a regression since 2.427 (I finally reproduced the "Unregistered URL scheme"), and a further crash in 2.427. And now I'm stuck with a non-function

Re: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-17 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:23:06PM +0100, Reini Urban wrote: >Christopher Faylor schrieb: >>On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:28:27AM -0500, Robb, Sam wrote: So it looks like the package files aren't being closed somewhere. >>> >>>Taking a look at the source, and trying to figure out where something >

Re: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-17 Thread Reini Urban
Christopher Faylor schrieb: On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:28:27AM -0500, Robb, Sam wrote: So it looks like the package files aren't being closed somewhere. Taking a look at the source, and trying to figure out where something like this might occur, I ended up in in install.cc, where I saw the followin

Re: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-16 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:28:27AM -0500, Robb, Sam wrote: >>So it looks like the package files aren't being closed somewhere. > >Taking a look at the source, and trying to figure out where something >like this might occur, I ended up in in install.cc, where I saw the >following comment in Installe

RE: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-16 Thread Robb, Sam
> So it looks like the package files aren't being closed > somewhere. Taking a look at the source, and trying to figure out where something like this might occur, I ended up in in install.cc, where I saw the following comment in Installer::installOneSource(): /* FIXME: potential leak of eithe

RE: The allegation is that setup is keeping open handles around...

2004-11-16 Thread Robb, Sam
> ...is it true? It seems like there are some valid concerns about > problems with setup.exe in the cygwin mailing list and no one is > addressing them. > > Setup.exe is too important a piece of the cygwin release for it to > go unsupported. Please, someone (Max?) respond to and, if possible, >