On May 17 13:48, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:22:06PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On May 17 10:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:26:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> >On May 17 12:56, Fedin Pavel wrote: > >> >> Hello! > >> >> > >> >> > The reason for this behaviour has been outlined a couple of times on > >> >> > this list. See http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-01/msg00173.html, > >> >> > for instance. > >> >> > >> >> Heh... > >> >> So, complete emulation would cost a major performance drop, right ? > >> >> Well... Can there be any setting which enables these checks ? At least > >> >> we have one use case... > >> > > >> >Not without lots of new code. > >> > >> So, maybe next Thursday? > > > >I would love to, but unfortunately I have to brush my cat on Thursday. > >And I don't even have a cat. > > You're welcome to brush mine in that case. I don't have one either. > > So it sounds like we may have a feline inavailability deadlock.
Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
