On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:28:23AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:38:09AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > >> Also, what version of XP are you running? Pro? Is it
> >> >> > > >> up-to-date with all service packs and updates?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >I'm running XP Pro SP1, with most updates applied (except
> >> >> > > >KB835409 and KB910437, which are pending).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Maybe that is a clue, as Yitzchak suggested. I'd missed that
> >> >> > > in the cygcheck output. I'm running SP2 and I believe Corinna
> >> >> > > is also.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It does look like a problem with SP1 (and Karl's message
> >> >> > supports this as well). Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to
> >> >> > install SP2 on this machine (due to licensing restrictions).
> >> >> > So I'll have to dig until a solution is found.
I'm wondering why the former version worked with SP2...
> >> >> Is real_path.iscygexec() the right test for noncygwin_process?
> >> >> It looks reversed...
> >> >
> >> >And indeed it was. Negating that test brought back the output of
> >> >commands invoked via ssh. I'll submit a patch to cygwin-patches in
> >> >a bit. Whew!
> >>
> >> You're asking if !iscygexec is the right way to detect a
> >> "noncygwin_process".
> >> Yes.
> >
> >No, I was actually asking whether iscygexec() was the right way to
> >detect a "noncygwin_process", since that's exactly the test used in
> >spawn_guts. You just confirmed that it isn't (and that its inverse,
> >!iscygexec(), is).
>
> In the future I'll try to limit my stupid remarks to one mailing list.
What, and make us miss all the fun? :-D
> Your interpretation of the problem was correct (although there still may
> be a lurking problem with non-cygwin processes) and my remarks about it
> should be disregarded because I was confused.
>
> (I've got a nice headache going on which explains the confusion but I
> should be experienced enough by now to know not to trust my judgement
> when I have to squint at the screen.)
Actually, it was the associated ChangeLog entry that confirmed it for me.
Looks like you originally intended to make it "cygwin_process"...
> Please give yourself a gold star for tracking this down, Igor.
Thanks, don't mind if I do... :-)
> Maybe now I can sleep tonight.
Ditto.
Igor
P.S. The changes with "CygwinInvisible" WindowStation were an attempt to
fix this problem, weren't they? Are they still needed?
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
