bug-rcs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug #41707: RCS 5.8 file corruption when using file descriptor IO fo


From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: bug #41707: RCS 5.8 file corruption when using file descriptor IO for large files
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:49:26 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux)

() Achim Gratz <address@hidden>
() Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:30:34 +0200

   As described in

   https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-06/msg00334.html
   https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-09/msg00331.html

   and demonstrated with

   https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-10/msg00086.html

   the STDIO code path fails for work files above a certain size on
   Cygwin.  Based on the analysis of how the breakage occurs I've
   developed the following patch for your consideration:

Thanks for the patch, and the analysis, too.  The latter i could
not / cannot do since i don't have access to such a platform.  As
for the patch (and because of the lack of platform access), i
request your help to proceed as follows:

- I have rewritten the test, attached here, to be more idiomatic.

Attachment: t820
Description: Binary data

  The first step is to check that this test fails for you when
  unpatched, and passes when patched.  Could you please confirm?
  (NB the ??? re ‘need_subdir’.)  The "maybe" in the description
  is because there was no way for 5.7 to force STDIO operation,
  so the problem might have been latent at that time.

- I'm wary of adding the close/re-open sequence unconditionally and
  wonder if there is a way to detect systems that misbehave thusly
  with a short C program (or better yet, sequence of shell
  commands) to be run by the configure script.  What do you think?

- etc

It's probably best to worry about "etc" after we surmount these
first two steps.  I understand that there is a difference between
GNU/Linux (say) and Cygwin, but i don't understand (yet) if that
difference is legitimate (i.e., allowed by POSIX or other relevant
standards).  What do you suggest i read to understand the analysis
linked in the URL above?
  
-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]