>>P.S.: I presume the fix will show up in the next Cygwin release.
>Nope. It's just for you. No one else is privileged enough to get the
>fix. :-)
:-))
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.
On 3/19/2010 2:32 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:30:32PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 3/19/2010 2:27 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
Thanks for your very active support in solving this issue with o
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:30:32PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>On 3/19/2010 2:27 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>>>Thanks for your very active support in solving this issue with our far
>>>from mainstream scenario!
>>
>>You're
On 3/19/2010 2:27 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
Thanks for your very active support in solving this issue with our far from
mainstream scenario!
You're welcome. It really was a pretty serious problem so I'm glad that
it surfaced
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>Thanks for your very active support in solving this issue with our far from
>mainstream scenario!
You're welcome. It really was a pretty serious problem so I'm glad that
it surfaced and that we were theoretically able to fix it.
>
Hi Christopher,
> How about today's snapshot? Corinna has YA told me what I did wrong with the
> latest round of spinlock changes and today's snapshot reflects her obvious
> fix.
Good news for the weekend! I've been running my original scenario with
20100318 repeatedly all day long. I couldn't r
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:55:48PM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>Hi Corinna,
>
>> Would you mind to give the latest developer snapshot from
>> http://www.cygwin.com/snapshots/ a try? It tries very carefully to
>> eliminate concurrency problems in the initialization phase.
>
>I see. With the same
Hi Corinna,
> Would you mind to give the latest developer snapshot from
> http://www.cygwin.com/snapshots/ a try? It tries very carefully to
> eliminate concurrency problems in the initialization phase.
I see. With the same scenario as in my original posting I trigger an
assertion added by Chris
Oliver,
On Mar 16 13:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 16 10:53, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
> > >No one is doubting that problems exist. That's why we're working
> > >on them.
> >
> > Sorry for again being unclear. The information above was soley meant to
> > complement the cygcheck output - whic
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:53:06AM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>>>Please find attached the requested information. However I had to edit
>>>it - as carefully as possible - to omit hints on the SAP-internal IT
>>>infrastructure.
>
>>Thanks. It would be nice if we could come up with some way to mak
On Mar 16 10:53, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
> >No one is doubting that problems exist. That's why we're working
> >on them.
>
> Sorry for again being unclear. The information above was soley meant to
> complement the cygcheck output - which was produced on my XP-64 machine -
> trying to say that the
Hi Christopher,
>>Please find attached the requested information. However I had to edit
>>it - as carefully as possible - to omit hints on the SAP-internal IT
>>infrastructure.
>Thanks. It would be nice if we could come up with some way to make
>cygcheck not output sensitive information but I do
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:01:04AM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>Hi Christopher,
>
>> Also, one big thing is missing here: cygcheck output [...]
>> Please send that ASAP.
>
>Please find attached the requested information. However I had to edit
>it - as carefully as possible - to omit hints on the
Hi Corinna,
> Are you absolutely sure that you can rule out BLODA effects?
I found and read http://cygwin.com/faq/faq.using.html#faq.using.bloda.
I can _NOT_ rule out those effects at all. In the opposite I know that I
run such software and I have sporadic file access problems (as described)
th
Hi Christopher,
> Is echo being run under a bash shell? From the command prompt? In a
> .bat file? Repeatedly in a loop?
I experienced it in the same scenario described in my original report:
A non-Cygwin shell calling a non-Cygwin 'gnumake -j' processing Makefiles
with rules calling Cygwin p
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:28:45PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>...that would be useful.
>
>Also, one big thing is missing here: cygcheck output, as per
>http://cygwin.com/problems.html. I just went back to check on what OS
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:28:45PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>...that would be useful.
Also, one big thing is missing here: cygcheck output, as per
http://cygwin.com/problems.html. I just went back to check on what OS
was being used and I don't see that anywhere.
Please send that ASAP.
c
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:48:14PM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Does the patch help?
>
>As the issue is sporadic it's not that easy to come up with a conclusive
>answer...
>
>I downloaded http://cygwin.com/snapshots/cygwin1-20100309.dll.bz2,
>unpacked and renamed the DLL and used it as
On 12/03/2010 17:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hang on. This endless loop has nothing to do with Cygwin code. The
> addresses show that we're outside of Cygwin, which is in the 0x61xx
> address range. 0x7dxx is probably somewher in a Windows DLL.
That'll be WFMO, I'd bet. So it's
On Mar 12 17:27, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 12 16:48, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Does the patch help?
> >
> > As the issue is sporadic it's not that easy to come up with a conclusive
> > answer...
> >
> > I downloaded http://cygwin.com/snapshots/cygwin1-20100309.dll.bz2,
> >
On Mar 12 16:48, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Does the patch help?
>
> As the issue is sporadic it's not that easy to come up with a conclusive
> answer...
>
> I downloaded http://cygwin.com/snapshots/cygwin1-20100309.dll.bz2,
> unpacked and renamed the DLL and used it as drop-in replacem
Hi,
> Does the patch help?
As the issue is sporadic it's not that easy to come up with a conclusive
answer...
I downloaded http://cygwin.com/snapshots/cygwin1-20100309.dll.bz2,
unpacked and renamed the DLL and used it as drop-in replacement to the
1.7.1 DLL.
I experienced three times by now th
Hi Corrina,
> Does the patch help?
I've right now no access to my dev box. I'll be able to
provide feedback (either positive or negative) tomorrow...
Regards, Oliver
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: ht
On Mar 11 00:22, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >>> I'll test the snapshot asap!
>
> >>The final patch is from cgf. It's probably more performant since it
> >>drops the requirement for an additional spinlock.
>
> >The snapshot contains try #3 on getting the locking right.
>
> Thank you both
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:22:52AM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>As a non-native speaker it's sometimes difficult to be not
>unintentionally offensive...
No one was offended.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentatio
Hi,
>>> I'll test the snapshot asap!
>>The final patch is from cgf. It's probably more performant since it
>>drops the requirement for an additional spinlock.
>The snapshot contains try #3 on getting the locking right.
Thank you both for clarifying. I was already aware of that by browsing
thro
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:59:29AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 10 10:55, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>> Hi Corrina,
>>
>> Thanks for your involvement :-)
>>
>> >> [...] a spinlock [...] With
>> >> InterlockedCompareExchange() and Sleep() it should be quite simple to
>> >> create one that's
On Mar 10 10:55, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
> Hi Corrina,
>
> Thanks for your involvement :-)
>
> >> [...] a spinlock [...] With
> >> InterlockedCompareExchange() and Sleep() it should be quite simple to
> >> create one that's very efficient in the usual scenario.
>
> > Does the below patch fix this
Hi Corrina,
Thanks for your involvement :-)
>> [...] a spinlock [...] With
>> InterlockedCompareExchange() and Sleep() it should be quite simple to
>> create one that's very efficient in the usual scenario.
> Does the below patch fix this for you?
I'll test the snapshot asap!
[...]
+ LONG
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:18:27AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:36:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Mar 9 11:08, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>
>>> Fist of all thanks for your immediate feedback :-)
>>>
>>> >>/* Initialize installation
On Mar 9 11:08, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> Fist of all thanks for your immediate feedback :-)
>
> >>/* Initialize installation root dir. */
> >> if (!installation_root[0])
> >> init_installation_root ();
>
> > I'll check in something tonight which attempts to sol
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:36:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 9 11:08, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> Fist of all thanks for your immediate feedback :-)
>>
>> >>/* Initialize installation root dir. */
>> >> if (!installation_root[0])
>> >> init_installa
Hi Christopher,
Fist of all thanks for your immediate feedback :-)
>>/* Initialize installation root dir. */
>> if (!installation_root[0])
>> init_installation_root ();
> I'll check in something tonight which attempts to solve this problem.
Thanks in advance.
> It's a somewhat tr
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:35:02PM +0100, Schmidt, Oliver wrote:
>We call from a non-Cygwin shell a non-Cygwin gnumake. The Makefile
>rules mostly call a non-Cygwin C compiler and linker. However Makefile
>rules calling gawk, cat, cp, echo, mkdir, rm, sed, sh, ... are calling
>Cygwin executables
34 matches
Mail list logo
