On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:45:22AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>On 12/04/2013 10:51 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> One question, though. Assuming start is == size, then the current code
> in CVS extends the fd table by only 1. If that happens often, the
> current code would have to ca
On 12/04/2013 10:51 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
One question, though. Assuming start is == size, then the current code
in CVS extends the fd table by only 1. If that happens often, the
current code would have to call ccalloc/memcpy/cfree a lot. Wouldn't
it in fact be bette
On Dec 4 12:51, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:23:24PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Dec 4 12:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:04:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >On Dec 4 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 4 10:32,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:23:24PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec 4 12:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:04:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Dec 4 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> On Dec 4 10:32, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> > Hi guys,
>> >> > [..
On Dec 4 12:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:04:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Dec 4 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Dec 4 10:32, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > Hi guys,
> >> > [...etc...]
> >> > The problem is still present in the current sources.
> >
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:04:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec 4 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Dec 4 10:32, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> > [...etc...]
>> > The problem is still present in the current sources.
>> > [...]
>
>Ouch, ouch, ouch! I tested the wrong DLL.
On Dec 4 12:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 4 10:32, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > [...etc...]
> > The problem is still present in the current sources.
> > [...]
Ouch, ouch, ouch! I tested the wrong DLL. Actually current CVS fixes
this problem. Duh. Sorry for the confusion.
On Dec 4 10:32, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
>
> I'm not quite sure yet *why* this happens, but this change in
> dtable::find_unused_handle...
>
> On Sep 25 17:26, Eric Blake wrote:
> > [...]
> > diff --git i/winsup/cygwin/dtable.cc w/winsup/cygwin/dtable.cc
> > index 2501a26..c2982a8 1
Hi guys,
I'm not quite sure yet *why* this happens, but this change in
dtable::find_unused_handle...
On Sep 25 17:26, Eric Blake wrote:
> [...]
> diff --git i/winsup/cygwin/dtable.cc w/winsup/cygwin/dtable.cc
> index 2501a26..c2982a8 100644
> --- i/winsup/cygwin/dtable.cc
> +++ w/winsup/cygwin/d
On 10/15/2013 08:06 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 05:26:25PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Solves the segfault here: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-09/msg00397.html
>> but does not address the fact that we are still screwy with regards to
>> rlimit.
>
> Corinna reminded m
Solves the segfault here: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-09/msg00397.html
but does not address the fact that we are still screwy with regards to
rlimit.
==
Ultimately, based on my understanding of POSIX and glibc, my goal is to
have a number of changes (this patch only scratches the surface;
11 matches
Mail list logo