On Oct 28 13:38, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > Absolutely. Since that's a serious but very subtil error, and you all
> > were very resourceful and diligent helping to fix it, I buy us all a
> > round of goldstars.
>
> Whew.
>
> http://cygwin.com/goldstars/#KB
> http://cygwin.com/goldstars/#KT
> htt
> Absolutely. Since that's a serious but very subtil error, and you all
> were very resourceful and diligent helping to fix it, I buy us all a
> round of goldstars.
Whew.
http://cygwin.com/goldstars/#KB
http://cygwin.com/goldstars/#KT
http://cygwin.com/goldstars/#EZ
http://cygwin.com/goldstars/#
On Oct 28 09:46, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 7:40 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Oct 28 10:43, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> >>On 24/10/2014 14:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>I discussed this with my college Kai Tietz (many thanks to him from
> >>>here), and we came up with a problem in sigdelayed
On 10/28/2014 7:40 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 28 10:43, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 24/10/2014 14:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I discussed this with my college Kai Tietz (many thanks to him from
here), and we came up with a problem in sigdelayed in the 64 bit case:
pushf is called *after* align
On Oct 28 10:43, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 24/10/2014 14:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I discussed this with my college Kai Tietz (many thanks to him from
> >here), and we came up with a problem in sigdelayed in the 64 bit case:
> >pushf is called *after* aligning the stack with andq. This alignment
On 24/10/2014 14:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I discussed this with my college Kai Tietz (many thanks to him from
here), and we came up with a problem in sigdelayed in the 64 bit case:
pushf is called *after* aligning the stack with andq. This alignment
potentially changes the CPU flag values so
On Oct 26 17:38, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/26/2014 9:20 AM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> >Ken Brown wrote:
> >>The people who have been reporting frequent crashes are aware of the fix.
> >>Now
> >>I just have to wait and hope I don't hear from them for a few days.
> >
> >Just for the record...
> >
> >B
On 10/26/2014 9:20 AM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
Ken Brown wrote:
The people who have been reporting frequent crashes are aware of the fix. Now
I just have to wait and hope I don't hear from them for a few days.
Just for the record...
Both with the snapshot and test releases, the issues in build
Ken Brown wrote:
The people who have been reporting frequent crashes are aware of the fix. Now I
just have to wait and hope I don't hear from them for a few days.
Just for the record...
Both with the snapshot and test releases, the issues in building Emacs I
had after the migration from Xp+C
On 10/24/2014 9:52 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 24 14:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 24 12:05, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 23/10/2014 16:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
Yes, flags register corruption is exactly what Eli suggested in the other
bug report I cite
On Oct 24 14:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 24 12:05, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> > On 23/10/2014 16:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
> > >>Yes, flags register corruption is exactly what Eli suggested in the other
> > >>bug report I cited.
> > >
> > >The aforemention
On Oct 24 12:05, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 23/10/2014 16:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>Yes, flags register corruption is exactly what Eli suggested in the other
> >>bug report I cited.
> >
> >The aforementioned patch was supposed to fix this problem and it is
> >
On 23/10/2014 16:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/23/2014 7:31 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 20/10/2014 14:03, Ken Brown wrote:
Or is there some other plausible explanation for "impossible" crashes?
This can't just be a result of a gdb bug, because in at least one
On Oct 23 21:07, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 4:32 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> >On 10/23/2014 11:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>>On 10/23/2014 7:31 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 20/10/2014 14:03, Ken Brown wrote:
> >Or is there some other plausible expl
On 10/23/2014 4:32 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/23/2014 11:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/23/2014 7:31 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 20/10/2014 14:03, Ken Brown wrote:
Or is there some other plausible explanation for "impossible" crashes?
This can't just be a
On 10/23/2014 11:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/23/2014 7:31 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 20/10/2014 14:03, Ken Brown wrote:
Or is there some other plausible explanation for "impossible" crashes?
This can't just be a result of a gdb bug, because in at least
Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> Yes, flags register corruption is exactly what Eli suggested in the other
>> bug report I cited.
>
> The aforementioned patch was supposed to fix this problem and it is
> definitely in the current 1.7.32 release...
Emacs uses a bunch of libraries and also messes itself
On Oct 23 08:04, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 7:31 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> >On 20/10/2014 14:03, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>Or is there some other plausible explanation for "impossible" crashes?
> >>This can't just be a result of a gdb bug, because in at least one case
> >>the assertion can be shown
On 10/23/2014 7:31 AM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 20/10/2014 14:03, Ken Brown wrote:
Or is there some other plausible explanation for "impossible" crashes?
This can't just be a result of a gdb bug, because in at least one case
the assertion can be shown to be valid by using printf instead of gdb.
[*]
On 20/10/2014 14:03, Ken Brown wrote:
Or is there some other plausible explanation for "impossible" crashes?
This can't just be a result of a gdb bug, because in at least one case
the assertion can be shown to be valid by using printf instead of gdb.
[*] By "impossible" I mean that examination o
On 10/21/2014 7:17 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 20 15:58, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/20/2014 3:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
One of the headaches when porting is sometimes the ABI. While on Linux
the first 6 arguments to a function are given in registers, on Windows
only 4 args are in regis
On Oct 20 15:58, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 3:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >One of the headaches when porting is sometimes the ABI. While on Linux
> >the first 6 arguments to a function are given in registers, on Windows
> >only 4 args are in registers. This can result in bugs when call
On 10/20/2014 3:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 20 18:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 20 09:03, Ken Brown wrote:
When trying to debug emacs in gdb, I see several threads, but it's not
always clear who created those threads and what they're doing. As an
example, I attached gdb to an em
On Oct 20 18:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 20 09:03, Ken Brown wrote:
> > When trying to debug emacs in gdb, I see several threads, but it's not
> > always clear who created those threads and what they're doing. As an
> > example, I attached gdb to an emacs-X11 process (running under X) sho
On Oct 20 09:03, Ken Brown wrote:
> When trying to debug emacs in gdb, I see several threads, but it's not
> always clear who created those threads and what they're doing. As an
> example, I attached gdb to an emacs-X11 process (running under X) shortly
> after starting it, and I obtained the back
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:13:23AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>Christopher Faylor, le Wed 24 Aug 2005 00:49:55 -0400, a ?crit :
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:51:44PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> >The attached program doesn't work as expected: if I run it and try to
>> >kill it (-15), nothing
Christopher Faylor, le Wed 24 Aug 2005 00:49:55 -0400, a écrit :
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:51:44PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >The attached program doesn't work as expected: if I run it and try to
> >kill it (-15), nothing seem happens. I if comment out
> >pthread_sigmask(), it does work a
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:51:44PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>The attached program doesn't work as expected: if I run it and try to
>kill it (-15), nothing seem happens. I if comment out
>pthread_sigmask(), it does work as expected: the handler is called, and
>threads are interrupted. What's
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:49:15PM -0600, wayne wrote:
>I was wondering what the current status of using threads are for
>cygwin? I have a project that I am starting and am considering using
>threads. The clients would be all flavors of Windows including 95 to
>XP. I know this is rather vague bu
-Original Message-
From: wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:49:15 -0600
Subject: threads question
I was wondering what the current status of using threads are for
cygwin? I have a project that I am starting and am considering
using threads. The cl
30 matches
Mail list logo
