On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:00:22PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On May 17 13:48, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:22:06PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >On May 17 10:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:26:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> >On May 17 12:56, Fedin Pavel wrote: >> >> >> Hello! >> >> >> >> >> >> > The reason for this behaviour has been outlined a couple of times on >> >> >> > this list. See http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-01/msg00173.html, >> >> >> > for instance. >> >> >> >> >> >> Heh... >> >> >> So, complete emulation would cost a major performance drop, right ? >> >> >> Well... Can there be any setting which enables these checks ? At >> >> >> least we have one use case... >> >> > >> >> >Not without lots of new code. >> >> >> >> So, maybe next Thursday? >> > >> >I would love to, but unfortunately I have to brush my cat on Thursday. >> >And I don't even have a cat. >> >> You're welcome to brush mine in that case. I don't have one either. >> >> So it sounds like we may have a feline inavailability deadlock. > >Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
I think it's ENOPURR . cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
