On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 08:26:36AM +0100, Jan Dj??rv wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>If someone is positing that one of several functions possibly isn't >>working in cygwin why not report exactly which function that would be? >>I.e., a little more work than reposting speculation would be >>appreciated. > >I did that comment, it is not speculation. I currently have no W32 >machine, hence no cygwin at all.
So if you have no way to verify anything then it sounds like it would be speculation by definition. Speculation isn't a bad word but speculating doesn't actually do any good until someone can confirm the speculation. Since I doubt that anyone here is going to download emacs to satisfy a speculation that cygwin's API is broken, we obviously need more details from people who care about this. i.e.: >I don't know how the original poster configured Gtk+, I don't know >which version of cygwin he/she has, I don't know which version of Gtk+ >he/she has. I only tried to find out if Emacs could fix this somehow, >which it can't. If the original poster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) can >send in his/hers config.h from the Gtk+ configuration, we can figure >out what function we are talking about. So, basically you're saying "a little more work" is required. 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/
