Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
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

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-05 Thread Eric Blake
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

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-04 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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,

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-04 Thread Christopher Faylor
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, >> >> > [..

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-04 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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. > >

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-04 Thread Christopher Faylor
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.

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-04 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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.

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-04 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-12-04 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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

Re: fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-11-23 Thread Eric Blake
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

fix off-by-one in dup2

2013-09-25 Thread Eric Blake
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;