[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#7652: coreutils snapshot time?
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
bug#7652: coreutils snapshot time? |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:21:12 +0100 |
I'd like to make a snapshot soon, and asked Paul how his sort
work was coming. He replied:
> 1 There's still a bug with sort -m -o f f; it can dump core
> despite my recent patch there. I have a fix for this and
> will push it (+ test case) shortly.
>
> 2 After further thinking about it, I now realize why there
> used to be a reference count for process-IDs. It's possible
> that two or more temp files are associated with the same process ID.
> The old code was designed to detect this, but I don't think it worked.
> The new code that I checked in a couple of days ago was not designed
> to detect this (I considered the scenario, but incorrectly concluded
> that it wouldn't lead to a problem), and I now know it doesn't work.
> I have a fix in mind and will work on it next.
>
> 3 The sort --compress/hang problem. It's conceivable this is the
> same bug as (2), but most likely it's different.
>
> None of these bugs are pressing: (1) has been there for ages
> and (2) and (3) are present only if --compress is used, which
> isn't common. So I don't think it matters much whether these
> fixes are in the next version. I'd like (1) to go in at least,
> and I think I can fix (2) in a day or two; dunno about (3).
Thanks!
I'll wait a little, in case a fix for (2) is forthcoming.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- bug#7652: coreutils snapshot time?,
Jim Meyering <=