On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 10:04:42PM -0700, Ian Kelling wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>It sounds like you are conflating a serious STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION >>which is known to occur on Windows 7 with your not-so-serious "Bash >>initialization w/cygwin-1.7". > >not-so-serious? Cygwin 1.7 install is very broken because of this bug. >Seems serious to me. Is anyone able to install a fresh 1.7 with the >default settings and not have bash fail? If so, perhaps post cygcheck >to compare?
When I said "a serious STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION" I really did mean that this was a serious problem. It is one that I'm sure Eric will fix, too. The workaround for now is to drop back to an older version of bash and, you've noted that you may have some fixup to do. There is another problem which occurs on NT4. There is no indication that this is related to the STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION since the problem is still evident even when dropping back to previous versions. Everyone seems to be in "confuse the issue as much as possible" mode today by first assuming that downloading binutils will fix a bash problem and then assuming that all bash problems are the same bash problem. There is not yet any reason to post cygcheck output. We think we understand the problem. We just are waiting for Eric to find the time to roll a new bash release built with the new version of binutils. 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
