On 5/21/2013 2:18 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:07:03AM +0400, Fedin Pavel wrote:
Not to discourage you but there will be a fairly low tolerance for much
of a complexity change or almost any performance degradation. Cygwin's
performance is a regular source of complain
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:07:03AM +0400, Fedin Pavel wrote:
>> Not to discourage you but there will be a fairly low tolerance for much
>> of a complexity change or almost any performance degradation. Cygwin's
>> performance is a regular source of complaints on this list (and
>> elsewhere).
>
> By
> Not to discourage you but there will be a fairly low tolerance for much
> of a complexity change or almost any performance degradation. Cygwin's
> performance is a regular source of complaints on this list (and
> elsewhere).
By the way... Right now i'm testing 64-bit Cygwin, and it appears to
On 5/20/2013 11:58 AM, Andy Hall wrote:
So here is a naïve question. Contrary to Corrina’s posting at
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-01/msg00173.html, the underlying OS
must effectively evaluate a path from left to right.
As you say, it's a naive question. Just checking around the web for
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:53:16PM +0400, Fedin Pavel wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> >> 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
> On 5/20/2013 7:53 AM, Fedin Pavel wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> 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
On 5/20/2013 7:53 AM, Fedin Pavel wrote:
Hello!
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?
By th
Hello!
> >> 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?
By the way, you said it would b
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 04:58:18PM +, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>>" On May 17 16:45, Warren Young wrote:
>>" > On 5/17/2013 12:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>" > >
>>" > >Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
>>" >
>>" > It depends. ENOFEL is the BS
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 04:58:18PM +, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>" On May 17 16:45, Warren Young wrote:
>" > On 5/17/2013 12:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>" > >
>" > >Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
>" >
>" > It depends. ENOFEL is the BSD way, but POSIX standardized the SysV
>" > error constant, EFLOCK
" On May 17 16:45, Warren Young wrote:
" > On 5/17/2013 12:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
" > >
" > >Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
" >
" > It depends. ENOFEL is the BSD way, but POSIX standardized the SysV
" > error constant, EFLOCK. Linux supports both, of course, so Cygwin
" > should, too.
"
" Hmm.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 17 16:45, Warren Young wrote:
>> On 5/17/2013 12:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >
>> >Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
>>
>> It depends. ENOFEL is the BSD way, but POSIX standardized the SysV
>> error constant, EFLOCK. Linux supports both
On May 17 16:45, Warren Young wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 12:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
>
> It depends. ENOFEL is the BSD way, but POSIX standardized the SysV
> error constant, EFLOCK. Linux supports both, of course, so Cygwin
> should, too.
Hmm. I'm not too keen to
On 17/05/2013 5:28 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
So it sounds like we may have a feline inavailability deadlock.
Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
I think it's ENOPURR .
ROFLMAO.
Maybe ENOMEW would be better.
ENOFUR.
--
Problem reports: ht
On 5/17/2013 12:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
It depends. ENOFEL is the BSD way, but POSIX standardized the SysV
error constant, EFLOCK. Linux supports both, of course, so Cygwin
should, too.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
>>> So it sounds like we may have a feline inavailability deadlock.
>>
>>Is that ENOFEL or EFLOCK?
>
> I think it's ENOPURR .
ROFLMAO.
Maybe ENOMEW would be better.
--
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd
--
Problem r
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:00:22PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>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 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!
> >> >>
> >
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
On 17/05/2013 11:22 AM, 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 htt
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/20
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...
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 ?
>
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 c
On May 17 10:05, Fedin Pavel wrote:
> Hello! I have found a bug in Cygwin. It exists at least for several months.
> I have updated today but it is still there.
> The bug is simple to trigger and verify. Make a directory like:
>
> mkdir /tmp/test
>
> Then go to /tmp and execute:
>
> ls -l /tmp
Hello! I have found a bug in Cygwin. It exists at least for several months.
I have updated today but it is still there.
The bug is simple to trigger and verify. Make a directory like:
mkdir /tmp/test
Then go to /tmp and execute:
ls -l /tmp/nonexist/../test
The command succeeds despite this
26 matches
Mail list logo
