This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
<sorry for mime header mistake on last post, this is same post w/fixed header> I tried the test case below w/the 5/27 snapshot and got what appear to be the same fork errors. So, I'm sticking with the 4/3/2006 snapshot. Is there any other info I can supply to help? -- thanks Tom On Wed 5/17/06 23:03 CDT cygwin@cygwin.com wrote: > Thanks to all for trying the test. --snip > Here's the nonsense command sequence again: > > cd /tmp;echo -ne '#!/bin/bash -u\nfoo "$@"\n' >bar;chmod +x bar > foo() { for f ;do bash -c true ;done ; } ; export -f foo > find /usr -print0|xargs -0 ./bar > > In the function "foo" "f" takes on the value from the find output, > but absolutely nothing is done with the value "$f". Maybe the fork > error would still show up if "find /usr -print0", was replaced w/"yes". Using 5/27 snapshot,I tried "yes|xargs -0 ./bar" but it did not cause fork errors, but "find /usr -print0|xargs -0 ./bar" did. --snip > The box that is acting up for me is a Windows 2000 server, w/OOTB heap settings.
Attachment:
cygcheck.out
Description: cygcheck -s -v -r
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |