On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:01:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >On 11/16/2011 8:14 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 02:22:02PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:04:16PM +0100, marco atzeri wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2011 6:11 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>> >>>>> FYI, the last thing any developer wants to hear after a major code >>>>> change is a generic "It's broke" report with no details and no way to >>>>> duplicate the problem. A stack trace from a home-grown version of >>>>> cygwin1.dll is not a detail. It's meaningless unless the addresses are >>>>> decoded. >>>> >>>> Ok, >>>> rewinding to step 1 >>>> >>>> I simplified the test case to a short one, involving just 1 make call, >>>> using your snapshot >>> >>> Amazingly short. Thanks very much! I can duplicate this and will fix >>> it. >> >> I've made some changes and can no longer duplicate the problem from your >> test case. If you can confirm that the latest snapshot works for you I >> would appreciate it. >> >> As it turns out, this was a change I was planning on making "at some >> point in the future". The future, apparently, is now. >> >> cgf >> > >CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 1.7.10s(0.255/5/3) 20111116 04:41:29 i686 Cygwin > >passed my crash test: >a full build of octave binary from scratch plus the make check.
Phew. Thanks for confirming. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
