--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
"warning: reader_thread.SetEvent failed with 6 for fd -1" and accessing fd_info[-1] |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:33:42 +0100 |
Package: emacs,w32
Severity: minor
(gdb) run -Q --eval "(shell-command \"dir\")"
Starting program: c:\emacs\debug\bin\emacs.exe -Q --eval
"(shell-command \"dir\")"
[New Thread 5948.0x17a4]
[New Thread 5948.0x9c8]
[New Thread 5948.0x4b4]
[New Thread 5948.0x16ac]
warning: reader_thread.SetEvent failed with 6 for fd -1
which can not be right, because it happens in this bit of code of
w32proc.c:reader_thread():
/* Our identity */
cp = (child_process *)arg;
/* We have to wait for the go-ahead before we can start */
if (cp == NULL
|| WaitForSingleObject (cp->char_consumed, INFINITE) != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
return 1;
for (;;)
{
int rc;
if (fd_info[cp->fd].flags & FILE_LISTEN)
rc = _sys_wait_accept (cp->fd);
else
rc = _sys_read_ahead (cp->fd);
/* The name char_avail is a misnomer - it really just means the
read-ahead has completed, whether successfully or not. */
if (!SetEvent (cp->char_avail))
{
DebPrint (("reader_thread.SetEvent failed with %lu for fd %ld\n",
GetLastError (), cp->fd));
return 1;
}
[...]
which means that cp->fd is being used as an index into fd_info[], and
the choice between _sys_wait_accept and _sys_read_ahead is bogus.
IIUC, cp->fd == -1 means that the wait was intended, but no input is
expected, so I think the following patch is enough:
=== modified file 'src/w32proc.c'
--- src/w32proc.c 2011-06-24 21:25:22 +0000
+++ src/w32proc.c 2011-11-14 15:19:09 +0000
@@ -241,7 +241,8 @@
/* We have to wait for the go-ahead before we can start */
if (cp == NULL
- || WaitForSingleObject (cp->char_consumed, INFINITE) != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
+ || WaitForSingleObject (cp->char_consumed, INFINITE) != WAIT_OBJECT_0
+ || cp->fd < 0)
return 1;
for (;;)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: bug#10044: "warning: reader_thread.SetEvent failed with 6 for fd -1" and accessing fd_info[-1] |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:53:13 +0100 |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 18:30, Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Let's go for it, thanks.
Done, closing.
--- End Message ---