On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:26:17AM -0700, Gary Zablackis wrote: >--- Jim Kleckner wrote: >>I wanted to personally thank you for putting up with the nonsense that >>this list always seems to dish out to discourage people from helping. >>You persevered and let it wash over you. I'm glad that cgf >>acknowledged your contribution but disappointed that he never seems to >>acknowledge that he was wrong to push back so hard. > >Thanks! Actually, the credit belongs to Bernard Loos who came up with >the solution and wrote about it to the list before I did: >http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-03/msg00945.html
Hmm. Was that personal email sent to a public list? Tsk. Tsk. To clarify what was going on here: if you look at the actual code that was put into cygwin you would see that the patch was not what was originally proposed. The reason for that is that the concerns that I raised in cygwin-patches were valid. When the patch was submitted, I was under the impression that the problem was actually due to the fact that the cygwin exception handler not being installed. In some situations this was not the case. Windows does add a bunch of exception handlers in front of the cygwin exception handler. It *is* the case that this function is called when the exception handler is not installed, however. So, more changes were required to avoid trying to install an exception handler when cygwin has not been fully initialized. The additional code included "only" an additional if test but getting to the point where I knew what "if" to put there (and I'm still not sure it's 100% right) took a couple of hours. There were also other changes needed in this function. So, by the time I was done, I changed a patch which added one line of code into a patch which added six lines of comments, two lines of code, and changed six other lines. cgf -- 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/
