In the meanwhile, does anybody have any comments to offer regarding
this? (Besides "stop asking", that is...)
Bash hangs. Both occurrences have been at the same specific script
line, and both produce similar gdb output.
Script line:
lffields[$counter]=`echo $lfline|cut -d'|' -f$fieldno`
Original Message
>From: Corinna Vinschen
>Sent: 01 March 2005 16:09
> On Mar 1 16:02, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Oh well. Time to install U/WIN?
>>
>> Micro$fot are thinking of renaming that.
>>
>> It's now going to be called THEY/WIN/WE/ALL/LOSE.
>
> You mean Interix, don't you? U/Win
On Mar 1 16:02, Dave Korn wrote:
> > Oh well. Time to install U/WIN?
>
> Micro$fot are thinking of renaming that.
>
> It's now going to be called THEY/WIN/WE/ALL/LOSE.
You mean Interix, don't you? U/Win is from AT&T.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails rega
Original Message
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 01 March 2005 15:49
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:42:52PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> David Dindorp wrote:
Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>>
I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:42:52PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Dave Korn wrote:
>> David Dindorp wrote:
>>> Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>
>>> I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin (I am on all other platforms),
>>> but apparently I was just making an ass of myself on
Dave Korn wrote:
> David Dindorp wrote:
>> Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>> I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin (I am on all other platforms),
>> but apparently I was just making an ass of myself on a public mailing
>> list (again?)
> Welcome to our world!
Version
Original Message
>From: David Dindorp
>Sent: 01 March 2005 15:17
> Christopher Faylor wrote (quotes rearranged wildly):
>> If you are running your own version of bash, then all bets are off.
>
> Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>
> I thought I was running 3.00 on
Christopher Faylor wrote (quotes rearranged wildly):
>If you are running your own version of bash, then all bets are off.
Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin (I am on all other platforms),
but apparently I was just making an ass of mysel
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 08:35:30AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 07:58:53AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>I went through the archives for October (anything related to "bash"),
>>>but couldn't find anything that seems related to me. Would you mind
>>>pointing me in
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 07:58:53AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I went through the archives for October (anything related to "bash"),
>>but couldn't find anything that seems related to me. Would you mind
>>pointing me in the right direction (subject, link, anything)?
>
>Sorry, no. I'm not g
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:08:04AM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Cristopher Faylor wrote:
"Christopher"
>>Anyway, this sounds a lot like the bash problem which has been
>>discussed here over the last several months (most heavily in the
>>October time frame). If you aren't running bash-2.05b-17 th
Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>>>David Dindorp wrote:
Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
Has anyone experienced something similar?
>Being precise is one thing you could do.
I tried my best.
>You could also provide cygcheck output as is
>suggested by http://cygwin.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 07:44:46PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>>David Dindorp wrote:
>>>Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
>>>Has anyone experienced something similar?
>>>
>>>Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
>>>compare
Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>David Dindorp wrote:
>>Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
>>Has anyone experienced something similar?
>>
>>Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
>>compare with what bash does (further below).
>
>>Version: snapshot 20050226 /
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 06:53:50PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
>Has anyone experienced something similar?
>
>Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
>compare with what bash does (further below).
>
>Version: snapshot
Dave Korn wrote:
> Hmm. You appear to have told tar to create the output archive
> in the root directory of the filing system.
Hm, actually $arcrfname contains a full path, including /cygdrive/c/...
I cut it from the script and output because it made it entirely
unreadable (partly related to my m
Original Message
>From: David Dindorp
>Sent: 28 February 2005 17:54
> Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
> compare with what bash does (further below).
> Log file:
> ==
> +++ tar --remove-files --ignore-failed-read -cvf \
> /0007-02-2005-02-2
Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
Has anyone experienced something similar?
Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
compare with what bash does (further below).
Version: snapshot 20050226 / bash 3.0.
If I'm grossly missing anything from my error re
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> If that was really true, you'd be using a snapshot by now.
Ok, ok, I can take a hint (sort of).
I'll give up trying to drill down bugs in 1.5.10.
>>> Has the problem been found that results in this error?:
>>> MapViewOfFileEx(0x188, in_h 0x188) failed, Win32 error 6
19 matches
Mail list logo
