On Feb 23 21:49, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 15:19 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 21 18:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Btw., in how far is XWin broken? I just tried to start it from the
> > > start menu and that worked perfectly fine. I get the default xterm
> >
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 15:19 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 21 18:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Btw., in how far is XWin broken? I just tried to start it from the
> > start menu and that worked perfectly fine. I get the default xterm
> > and that works.
>
> I really need something repr
Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> > > I'm sorry to report that the 20120220 snapshot breaks the X server,
>> > > which uses fcntl() with a lock file.
>> >
>> > STC?
>>
>> Btw., in how far is XWin broken? I just tried to start it from the
>> start menu and that worked perfectly fine. I get the default
Hi Yaakov,
On Feb 21 18:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 21 09:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 20 19:29, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> > > > hard
On Feb 21 09:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 20 19:29, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> > > hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils
On Feb 20 19:29, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> > hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils down
> > to the fact that my last round of patche
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils down
> to the fact that my last round of patches back in August were not
> actually fixing the pr
On 2/20/2012 6:17 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils down
> to the fact that my last round of patches back in August were not
> actually fixing the problem, but on
On Feb 18 13:51, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 8:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 16 07:56, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> I read the Linux man page again (http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock)
> >>> and I just hacked the following
On 2/16/2012 8:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 16 07:56, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> I read the Linux man page again (http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock)
>>> and I just hacked the following testcase, based on your flock STC.
>>
>> That sounds
On Feb 16 07:56, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I read the Linux man page again (http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock)
> > and I just hacked the following testcase, based on your flock STC.
>
> That sounds pretty close to what the APR test case is doing,
On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 14:14, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/15/2012 1:20 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> But.
On Feb 15 14:14, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 1:20 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> But... now one of the flock tests is failing. It take
On 2/15/2012 1:20 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? A
On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
> >>> found the problem. I appl
On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
>>> found the problem. I applied a patch which fixes the problem for me
>>> and, s
On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
> > found the problem. I applied a patch which fixes the problem for me
> > and, surprise!, the flock test still runs fine, too. I'
On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
> found the problem. I applied a patch which fixes the problem for me
> and, surprise!, the flock test still runs fine, too. I've just uploaded
> a new snapshot. Please give it
On Feb 14 13:43, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 10:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 14 09:58, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> > The
On 2/14/2012 10:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 09:58, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. T
On Feb 14 09:58, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >>> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
> >>> test case failed with 1.7.9 with a
On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
>>> test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
>>> corrected. The test
On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> > The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
> > test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
> > corrected. The test is no longer encountering the fatal error, but
>
On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
> test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
> corrected. The test is no longer encountering the fatal error, but
> it is producing the wrong result.
Thanks for the
On 2/14/2012 12:00 AM, David Rothenberger wrote:
> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks.
I forgot to mention that this same test is failing in the libapr1 test
suite when using fcntl locks. I haven't extracted an STC for that, but
it's probably very similar to the previous one
On 8/29/2011 6:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 27 15:27, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 8/27/2011 1:37 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have
On Aug 27 15:27, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 1:37 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >>> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
> >>> bombing with this message:
> >>>
> >>>
On 8/27/2011 1:37 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
>>> bombing with this message:
>>>
>>> *** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC035
>>>
On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> > For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
> > bombing with this message:
> >
> > *** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC035
> >
> > I finally took some time to investigate and
On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
> bombing with this message:
>
> *** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC035
>
> I finally took some time to investigate and have extracted a STC
> that demonstrates the problem.
30 matches
Mail list logo
