Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>I fixed some more problems with both vfork and with fork recently. The
>fixes are currently in cvs.
It's much better.
CYGWIN_ME-4.90 hpn5170x 1.5.6(0.108/3/2) 2003-12-29 22:44 i686 unknown
unknown Cygwin
I only have problems with the more complicated tests.
Open tw
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:04:01PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:26:32PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>>Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>At 12:46 PM 12/27/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
I missed the 'sh -c' clue in your previous message. Since sh uses
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 06:28:09PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>...when I launch inetd from an rxvt window running bash, or from a Dos
>window running cygwin.bat with tty, I still see tty handles in inetd.
I fixed some more problems with both vfork and with fork recently. The
fixes are curren
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:26:32PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>At 12:46 PM 12/27/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>>I missed the 'sh -c' clue in your previous message. Since sh uses
>>>vfork, that indicates a vfork problem. I've checked in some more
>>>chang
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
At 12:46 PM 12/27/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I missed the 'sh -c' clue in your previous message. Since sh uses
vfork, that indicates a vfork problem. I've checked in some more
changes to deal with this. It seems to do the right thing both with sh
-c and witho
At 12:46 PM 12/27/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>I missed the 'sh -c' clue in your previous message. Since sh uses
>vfork, that indicates a vfork problem. I've checked in some more
>changes to deal with this. It seems to do the right thing both with sh
>-c and without. It also should
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 10:27:51PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 09:40 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>I tried the current CVS version and I don't see any stray tty garbage
>>with inetd. I never tried this with an older snapshot, however, so I
>>don't know if I would have
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 05:29:56PM +0100, Philippe Torche wrote:
>>So, if you were just reporting this as a data point, then thanks. If
>>you are expecting me to do something about it, then, you will,
>>unfortunately, be disappointed.
>:-( Not you but other maybe !
Ok. I'll just ignore your peri
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:37:36PM +0100, Philippe Torche wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
The subject says it all.
I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
I've tested it (CVS version 12:35 GMT + 1) on our 4 Xeon on W2003S and
unfortunately my previ
At 09:40 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>I tried the current CVS version and I don't see any stray tty garbage
>with inetd. I never tried this with an older snapshot, however, so I
>don't know if I would have been lucky before. I did try a much simpler
>test case which worked in
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 09:13:36PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >At 05:59 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>I added strace debugging. You can use that as a clue for what I was
> >>talking about and make it
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 09:13:36PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 05:59 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I added strace debugging. You can use that as a clue for what I was
>>talking about and make it visible if you can't run exim under strace.
>
>I put a try_to_debug(1). Wait
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:59:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 03:46:41PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>Also, while running sysinternals I noticed to the exim daemon still had
>>tty related handles, despite setsid(). Ditto for inetd.
>
>Calling setsid does not au
At 05:59 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>I added strace debugging. You can use that as a clue for what I was
>talking about and make it visible if you can't run exim under strace.
I put a try_to_debug(1). Waiting for something to happen.
>>Also, while running sysinternals I no
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 03:46:41PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 06:27:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 06:15:24PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >At 11:59 AM 12/24/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >>On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:2
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 06:27:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 06:15:24PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >At 11:59 AM 12/24/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:
> "Christopher" == Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christopher> The subject says it all.
Christopher> I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
I just checked cygwin1-20031225
Apache (1.3.24-5) stackdumps right away and wmaker (0.80.0-2) reproducable
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:37:36PM +0100, Philippe Torche wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>The subject says it all.
>>
>>I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
>
>I've tested it (CVS version 12:35 GMT + 1) on our 4 Xeon on W2003S and
>unfortunately my previous test case (ru
Christopher Faylor wrote:
The subject says it all.
I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
cgf
I've tested it (CVS version 12:35 GMT + 1) on our 4 Xeon on W2003S and
unfortunately my previous test case (run_t.sh and t.sh) always fails.
The test suite runs soon happily (exce
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 04:05:24PM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote:
>I run the testsuite when I built the dll which gives:
>
>FAIL: msgtest.c (execute)
>FAIL: semtest.c (execute)
>FAIL: shmtest.c (execute)
>FAIL: pthread/mainthreadexits.c (execute)
I think we've already been down the testsuite route.
I was running the open_posix_testsuite against the current "homebuilt"
cygwin1.dll but I get the same error if I use the new dll to build
itself. It only happens randomly to gcc.exe but it always errors at the
same location "0x61085fba".
I run the testsuite when I built the dll which gives:
FAIL
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 09:07:51AM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote:
>Using a CVS Head version, I get a popup with:
>
>The instruction at "0x61085fba" referenced memory at "0x61002f90". The
>memory could not be "written"
>
>$ addr2line -e /bin/cygwin1.dll 61085fba
>/src/cygwin/obj/obj-org/i686-pc-cygwin
Using a CVS Head version, I get a popup with:
The instruction at "0x61085fba" referenced memory at "0x61002f90". The
memory could not be "written"
$ addr2line -e /bin/cygwin1.dll 61085fba
/src/cygwin/obj/obj-org/i686-pc-cygwin/winsup/cygwin/../../../../../src/
winsup/cygwin/shm.cc:331
/* Try
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 06:15:24PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 11:59 AM 12/24/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:28:16PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
The subject says it all.
At 11:59 AM 12/24/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:28:16PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> The subject says it all.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
>>
>>On
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:20:37PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>At 11:59 AM 12/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:28:16PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
The subject says it all.
I'm hoping t
At 11:59 AM 12/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:28:16PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> The subject says it all.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
>>
>>On WinMe the queu
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:28:16PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> The subject says it all.
>>
>> I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
>
>On WinMe the queue runner forked by the exim daemon still occasio
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 05:28:16PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> The subject says it all.
>
> I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
On WinMe the queue runner forked by the exim daemon still occasionally
produces a popup indicating an error in Cygwin1.dll
In addition k
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:45:27PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:39:13PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>> >Have you run the testsuite lately? I get a heap of failures on NT4.
>> >But, in that timeframe, I certainly won't have ti
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:39:13PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
> >Have you run the testsuite lately? I get a heap of failures on NT4.
> >But, in that timeframe, I certainly won't have time to look at them.
>
> You can safely assume that cygwin is not
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:39:13PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>Have you run the testsuite lately? I get a heap of failures on NT4.
>But, in that timeframe, I certainly won't have time to look at them.
You can safely assume that cygwin is not released without my running the
test suite.
I haven't ru
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> The subject says it all.
>
> I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
>
Have you run the testsuite lately? I get a heap of failures on NT4. But,
in that timeframe, I certainly won't have time to look at them.
lots of "child pro
The subject says it all.
I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygw
34 matches
Mail list logo
