> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> On Jul 20 11:14, Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
>> > Christopher Faylor writes:
>>
>> > Btw, Volker, if you're reading this, could you try the latest snapshot?
>> > Corinna has a theory on what's causing your problem and I'd like to see
>> > if
On Jul 20 11:14, Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
> > Christopher Faylor writes:
>
> > Btw, Volker, if you're reading this, could you try the latest snapshot?
> > Corinna has a theory on what's causing your problem and I'd like to see
> > if the cygserver problem is gone now.
>
> Sorry no,
> Christopher Faylor writes:
> Btw, Volker, if you're reading this, could you try the latest snapshot?
> Corinna has a theory on what's causing your problem and I'd like to see
> if the cygserver problem is gone now.
Sorry no, see my previous post.
> cgf
Ciao
Volker
--
U
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:12:57AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul 18 18:55, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Xavier Joubert wrote:
>>>I thought a daily Cygwin snapshot was automatically generated (when I
>>>looked at the page, I saw one from the previous day...). I see that'
On Jul 18 18:55, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Xavier Joubert wrote:
> > I thought a daily Cygwin snapshot was automatically generated (when I
> > looked at the page, I saw one from the previous day...). I see that's
> > not the way it's done. I hope you didn't generate one only b
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Xavier Joubert wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Selon Xavier Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'll try Cygwin snapshot tomorrow and let you know how it goes with
> > the real stuff.
>
> That's perfect ! Thanks again Corinna.
>
> I thought a daily Cygwin snapshot was automatically gener
Hello all,
Selon Xavier Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll try Cygwin snapshot tomorrow and let you know how it goes with the real
> stuff.
That's perfect ! Thanks again Corinna.
I thought a daily Cygwin snapshot was automatically generated (when I looked at
the page, I saw one from the previ
On Jul 15 23:10, Xavier Joubert wrote:
> Selon Corinna Vinschen:
> > I've checked in a fix, so that mprotect tests for
> > the original protection mode of the first page in the area, and uses
> > READWRITE or WRITECOPY, whichever matches the original protection.
>
> Whow! That's amazing! I didn'
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:10:20PM +0200, Xavier Joubert wrote:
>Hello Corinna,
>
>
>Selon Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The cause is a limitation in newer Windows NT versions, which make sense.
>> Well, sort of. The protection modes PAGE_READWRITE and PAGE_WRITECOPY are
>> mutually exl
Hello Corinna,
Selon Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The cause is a limitation in newer Windows NT versions, which make sense.
> Well, sort of. The protection modes PAGE_READWRITE and PAGE_WRITECOPY are
> mutually exlusive, which is enforced in calls to VirtualProtect since W2K.
>
> Sinc
On Jul 15 18:19, Xavier Joubert wrote:
> Hello dear Cygwin developpers !
>
>
> This is my first post here, so I would like to begin by sending you a big thank
> for Cygwin ! This is a great tool to port programs to Windows.
Thanks :-)
> I think I found a bug in mprotect() implementation. This
Hello dear Cygwin developpers !
This is my first post here, so I would like to begin by sending you a big thank
for Cygwin ! This is a great tool to port programs to Windows.
I think I found a bug in mprotect() implementation. This call is unable to set
some protections (PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE
12 matches
Mail list logo
