Some update on Cygwin hangs

[Erik Joelsson]

I have tinkered around with msys and initially it looked like slower but 
more stable. However, the slower part was due to a bug in configure that 
didn't detect the number of cores and amount of memory on the system 
correctly and thus defaulted to running make -j1. I fixed this bug, 
enabling concurrency for msys, but ran into frequent crashes instead.

No real decision has been made, but between me and Magnus we felt that 
msys didn't work too well. Running msys serially might still be the best 
stability option though.

/Erik

On 2012-10-22 17:56, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>
>> On 2012-10-19 20:13, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>> If we are not seeing this hang with MinGW/MSYS, perhaps we need to make a decision here to abandon CYGWIN?
>> On the contrary, we're seeing a lot more instability with msys. :-(
> I'm completely surprised by that statement, I thought you had said that msys was slower but more stable.
>
>> Erik has seen lots of random crashes, I haven't seen many (just about one or two) but I have also seen hangs.
>>
>> So we've basically taken the informal decision of not pushing the msys track any further. What's in there will work properly some/most of the time. It might very well be good enough for "community support", but it won't do to use in our build farms.
> Who  was "we" here?  And what exactly is this "informal decision" that was made?
>
>   And what does  "some/most" mean?
>
> -kto
>
>> That's the reason for the renewed efforts to get cygwin working. We concluded that there seems to be just a single issue left with cygwin: if it hangs, it hangs at the "ctsym bug", so it should be doable to  figure out what goes wrong and work around it. Msys, on the other hand, seemed much more generally unstable.
>>
>> But we need to get either of them working, or we can't build with acceptable stability on Windows. So it's really a high priority issue for us.
>>
>> /Magnus