In the meanwhile, does anybody have any comments to offer regarding
this? (Besides "stop asking", that is...)
Bash hangs. Both occurrences have been at the same specific script
line, and both produce similar gdb output.
Script line:
lffields[$counter]=`echo $lfline|cut -d'|' -f$fieldno`
Original Message
>From: Corinna Vinschen
>Sent: 01 March 2005 16:09
> On Mar 1 16:02, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Oh well. Time to install U/WIN?
>>
>> Micro$fot are thinking of renaming that.
>>
>> It's now going to be called THEY/WIN/WE/ALL/LOSE.
>
> You mean Interix, don't you? U/Win
On Mar 1 16:02, Dave Korn wrote:
> > Oh well. Time to install U/WIN?
>
> Micro$fot are thinking of renaming that.
>
> It's now going to be called THEY/WIN/WE/ALL/LOSE.
You mean Interix, don't you? U/Win is from AT&T.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails rega
Original Message
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 01 March 2005 15:49
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:42:52PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> David Dindorp wrote:
Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>>
I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:42:52PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Dave Korn wrote:
>> David Dindorp wrote:
>>> Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>
>>> I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin (I am on all other platforms),
>>> but apparently I was just making an ass of myself on
Dave Korn wrote:
> David Dindorp wrote:
>> Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>> I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin (I am on all other platforms),
>> but apparently I was just making an ass of myself on a public mailing
>> list (again?)
> Welcome to our world!
Version
Original Message
>From: David Dindorp
>Sent: 01 March 2005 15:17
> Christopher Faylor wrote (quotes rearranged wildly):
>> If you are running your own version of bash, then all bets are off.
>
> Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
>
> I thought I was running 3.00 on
Christopher Faylor wrote (quotes rearranged wildly):
>If you are running your own version of bash, then all bets are off.
Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'.
I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin (I am on all other platforms),
but apparently I was just making an ass of mysel
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 08:35:30AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 07:58:53AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>I went through the archives for October (anything related to "bash"),
>>>but couldn't find anything that seems related to me. Would you mind
>>>pointing me in
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 07:58:53AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I went through the archives for October (anything related to "bash"),
>>but couldn't find anything that seems related to me. Would you mind
>>pointing me in the right direction (subject, link, anything)?
>
>Sorry, no. I'm not g
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:08:04AM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Cristopher Faylor wrote:
"Christopher"
>>Anyway, this sounds a lot like the bash problem which has been
>>discussed here over the last several months (most heavily in the
>>October time frame). If you aren't running bash-2.05b-17 th
Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>>>David Dindorp wrote:
Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
Has anyone experienced something similar?
>Being precise is one thing you could do.
I tried my best.
>You could also provide cygcheck output as is
>suggested by http://cygwin.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 07:44:46PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>>David Dindorp wrote:
>>>Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
>>>Has anyone experienced something similar?
>>>
>>>Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
>>>compare
Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>David Dindorp wrote:
>>Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
>>Has anyone experienced something similar?
>>
>>Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
>>compare with what bash does (further below).
>
>>Version: snapshot 20050226 /
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 06:53:50PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
>Has anyone experienced something similar?
>
>Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
>compare with what bash does (further below).
>
>Version: snapshot
Dave Korn wrote:
> Hmm. You appear to have told tar to create the output archive
> in the root directory of the filing system.
Hm, actually $arcrfname contains a full path, including /cygdrive/c/...
I cut it from the script and output because it made it entirely
unreadable (partly related to my m
Original Message
>From: David Dindorp
>Sent: 28 February 2005 17:54
> Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
> compare with what bash does (further below).
> Log file:
> ==
> +++ tar --remove-files --ignore-failed-read -cvf \
> /0007-02-2005-02-2
Bash seems to think that it's child has terminated prematurely.
Has anyone experienced something similar?
Evidence: See the order of execution in the script below,
compare with what bash does (further below).
Version: snapshot 20050226 / bash 3.0.
If I'm grossly missing anything from my error re
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> If that was really true, you'd be using a snapshot by now.
Ok, ok, I can take a hint (sort of).
I'll give up trying to drill down bugs in 1.5.10.
>>> Has the problem been found that results in this error?:
>>> MapViewOfFileEx(0x188, in_h 0x188) failed, Win32 error 6
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 11:29:38AM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>The test were performed with 1.5.10-3, as newer versions call upon me
>>>all sorts of other problems and thus can't be pushed to the failing box
>>>right now.
>>>
Btw, I urge everyone to try the latest
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Ah, yes! You're the "you don't want people to debug cygwin because
you
> aren't spoon feeding me debugging information" guy!
That is nowhere near what was said.
I said you should provide debugging versions of Cygwin, since large
software packages are hell to build. I
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:23:42PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Actually, we do. We provide the source code. It's easy to build.
>
>You are right; I was wrong. Building Cygwin is easy.
>(At least when it comes to newer versions :-p.)
>It even "compiles under itself".
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Actually, we do. We provide the source code. It's easy to build.
You are right; I was wrong. Building Cygwin is easy.
(At least when it comes to newer versions :-p.)
It even "compiles under itself". *impressed*.
It's been a few weeks, and I've tested with the debug
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> Fixed. By the way, does anyone know exactly what Devel packages are required
> to build Cygwin? I used to just think "install everything" but now
> there's a lot of
> new X or GNOME related stuff. I know I've got more than I need
> installed, but I'm
> thinking tha
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:36:50 -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:29:29 +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
> > And the link in the FAQ is wrong:
> >
> > "How can I debug cygwin" (entry 105) says:
> >
> > "To build a debugging version of the Cygwin DLL,
> > you will need to follow
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:29:29 +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
> How about adding a line in the FAQ to the "how to build cygwin" (104)
> entry
> stating that the "configure ; make" mentioned does produce a Cygwin with
> all
> debugging symbols?
>
> And the link in the FAQ is wrong:
>
> "How can I debug
Ack!
Apologies for the formatting.
The company I'm employed at uses Outlook (thereby MS-WORD) for e-mail.
Here's what I wanted to say:
The FAQ entry 105 links to entry 102 under "how to compile".
Shouldn't this point to 104 instead?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-s
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> Umm, that was my bad. The thing is, "--enable-debugging" really
produces
>> a developer debug version, with extra tracing, etc. If all you want
is a
>> version of DLL with all the symbols (i.e., unstripped), the regular
build
>> produces that as well.
Cristopher Fayl
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:07:18PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, David Dindorp wrote:
>
>> Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>> > Actually, we do. We provide the source code. It's easy to build.
>>
>> On your particular system which is tuned to do precisely this, maybe.
>> If it's
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, David Dindorp wrote:
> Cristopher Faylor wrote:
> > Actually, we do. We provide the source code. It's easy to build.
>
> On your particular system which is tuned to do precisely this, maybe.
> If it's as easy as you say, I'll spend some more time on it.
>
> > Have you even t
Cristopher Faylor wrote:
> Actually, we do. We provide the source code. It's easy to build.
On your particular system which is tuned to do precisely this, maybe.
If it's as easy as you say, I'll spend some more time on it.
> Have you even tried it?
No. For a couple of reasons.
1. Prior exp
Cristopher Faylor wrote:
>>> Again, this doesn't address your immediate concern.
>>> A snapshot is your best bet.
>>
>> Using the snapshot in the test environment, I now get these errors:
>>
>> sleep.exe (1924): *** MapViewOfFileEx(0x188, in_h 0x188) failed,
Win32
>> error 6
>>
>> Any ideas why thi
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 03:42:15PM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> >Yep, I missed that. It's gone, but with the other FAQ additions it moved:
> >
> >http://cygwin.com/faq/faq0.html#SEC104
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:46:41 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> This feels vaguely like I'm programmi
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 03:42:15PM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:36:00AM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>> >To build a debugging version of the Cygwin DLL, you will need to follow
>> >the instructions at http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_3.html#SEC102, adding the
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:36:00AM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> >To build a debugging version of the Cygwin DLL, you will need to follow
> >the instructions at http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_3.html#SEC102, adding the
> >`--enable-debugging' option to `../configure'. You can also contact the
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:36:00AM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>To build a debugging version of the Cygwin DLL, you will need to follow
>the instructions at http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_3.html#SEC102, adding the
>`--enable-debugging' option to `../configure'. You can also contact the
>mailing
OK the three FAQs beginning at http://cygwin.com/faq/faq0.html#SEC102
now read:
How do I build Cygwin on my own?
First, you need to get the Cygwin source. Ideally, you should check
out what you need from CVS (http://cygwin.com/cvs.html). This is the
preferred method for acquiring the sources. Oth
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 07:04:50PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>IMHO you're looking from the wrong direction. People capable of
>>debugging the Cygwin DLL are usually also capable of building it.
>
>The only reason that the above is true is because you do not provide
>the
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 04:08:06PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>> Again, this doesn't address your immediate concern.
>> A snapshot is your best bet.
>
>Using the snapshot in the test environment, I now get these errors:
>
>sleep.exe (1924): *** MapViewOfFileEx(0x188, in_h 0x188) failed, Win32
>err
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 05:28:38PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:47:20PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:02:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
tar xjf cy
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:47:20PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:02:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>
> >> tar xjf cygwin-1.5.12-1-src.tar.bz2
> >> cd cygwin-1.5.12-1
> >> mkdir bui
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:02:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>> tar xjf cygwin-1.5.12-1-src.tar.bz2
>> cd cygwin-1.5.12-1
>> mkdir build
>> cd build
>> (../configure; make) >& make.out
>>
>> It does make sense
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:26:39PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:53:25AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >Also agreed. But the source provided in the cygwin source package is
>> >worthless for debugging, since one
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:02:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> tar xjf cygwin-1.5.12-1-src.tar.bz2
> cd cygwin-1.5.12-1
> mkdir build
> cd build
> (../configure; make) >& make.out
>
> It does make sense to check CVS or a snapshot to see if your problem is
> fixed before you go
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:53:25AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >Also agreed. But the source provided in the cygwin source package is
> >worthless for debugging, since one can't build Cygwin from that source.
> >If debugger symbols were availa
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:53:25AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>Also agreed. But the source provided in the cygwin source package is
>worthless for debugging, since one can't build Cygwin from that source.
>If debugger symbols were available, that source would actually be
>useful. :-)
Huh?
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> IMHO you're looking from the wrong direction. People capable of
> debugging the Cygwin DLL are usually also capable of building it.
The only reason that the above is true is because you do not provide
the means for people to debug the Cygwin DLL properly.
> I'm wonderin
On Jan 21 11:53, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >IMHO you're looking from the wrong direction. People capable of
> > >debugging the Cygwin DLL are usually also capable of building i
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jan 21 11:18, Hughes, Bill wrote:
> >>I don't think I'm putting this very well, but it may make the FAQ
> >>easier if the standard advice is to load the snaphot and use that for
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jan 21 11:18, Hughes, Bill wrote:
>>I don't think I'm putting this very well, but it may make the FAQ
>>easier if the standard advice is to load the snaphot and use that for
>>debugging, it removes a separate layer of potential p
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:47:20AM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>
>> Well, how about this then:
>> [snip]
>
>
>Here's my shot at what would've helped me a lot when I initially faced
>problems. Of course providing as much info as below will only leave
>you with more ne
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:38:35AM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> David Dindorp wrote:
>>> The snapshots page says that it's a stripped version.
>>> Who should I trust, the snapshot page or the FAQ?
>>
>> You should trust me when I tell you that the snapshots
>> haven't b
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:44:39PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 20 17:00, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >
> > This must be modulated by the warnings on the snapshot page,
> > so I would recommend an initial step: write to the list, describe
> > the bug and ask for a recommended snapshot.
>
> Again, this doesn't address your immediate concern.
> A snapshot is your best bet.
Using the snapshot in the test environment, I now get these errors:
rm.exe (2512): *** MapViewOfFileEx(0x1D0, in_h 0x1D0) failed, Win32
error 6
awk.exe (1164): *** MapViewOfFileEx(0x1B0, in_h 0x1B0) failed, Win32
Bill Hughes wrote:
> I don't think I'm putting this very well, but it may make the FAQ
> easier if the standard advice is to load the snaphot and use that for
> debugging, it removes a separate layer of potential problems in
> building the dll.
And there's still the issue that problems that are n
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 21 11:18, Hughes, Bill wrote:
>> I don't think I'm putting this very well, but it may make the FAQ
>> easier if the standard advice is to load the snaphot and use that
>> for debugging, it removes a separate layer of potential problems in
>> building the dll. I susp
On Jan 21 11:18, Hughes, Bill wrote:
> I don't think I'm putting this very well, but it may make the FAQ easier if
> the standard advice is to load the snaphot and use that for debugging, it
> removes a separate layer of potential problems in building the dll. I
> suspect the people who would want
Christopher Faylor wrote:
..snip..
>> The snapshots page says that it's a stripped version.
>> Who should I trust, the snapshot page or the FAQ?
>
> You should trust me when I tell you that the snapshots haven't been
> stripped recently.
>
> However, oops, this means that the advice of using a s
On Jan 20 17:00, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 12:47:33PM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Sure, how about this:
> >
> > I've found a bug in Cygwin, how can I debug it?
> >
> > Debugging symbols are stripped from distibuted Cygwin binaries, so any
> > symbols tha
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> Well, how about this then:
> [snip]
Here's my shot at what would've helped me a lot when I initially faced
problems. Of course providing as much info as below will only leave
you with more newbies crying 'cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06' or such.
+ More informa
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> David Dindorp wrote:
>> The snapshots page says that it's a stripped version.
>> Who should I trust, the snapshot page or the FAQ?
>
> You should trust me when I tell you that the snapshots
> haven't been stripped recently.
You sound authoritative. I'll do that.
There
>> To: Cygwin List
>> Subject: Re: cygwin bughunt
>>
>> Larry Hall wrote:
>>
>> > I have the following suggestions/questions:
>>
>> > 1. Did you try a Cygwin 1.5.12 or even a snapshot?
>>
>> No. I'm using 1.5.10, and
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:24:03 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> However, oops, this means that the advice of using a snapshot shouldn't
> go into the FAQ since this isn't a permanent arrangement.
Well, how about this then:
I may have found a bug in Cygwin, how can I debug it (the symbols in gdb
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Dindorp
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:13 PM
> To: Cygwin List
> Subject: Re: cygwin bughunt
>
> Larry Hall wrote:
>
> > I have the following suggestions/
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:56:14AM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>David Dindorp wrote:
>>Tracking it down with GDB to cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06 was easy.
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Since cygwin isn't built with debugging symbols, the symbols that you
>>do see in gdb are basically meaningle
David Dindorp wrote:
> Tracking it down with GDB to cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06 was
easy.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Since cygwin isn't built with debugging symbols, the symbols that you
do
> see in gdb are basically meaningless.
Isn't there any way to compile the debugging symbols into a s
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 12:47:33PM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>
> Sure, how about this:
>
> I've found a bug in Cygwin, how can I debug it?
>
> Debugging symbols are stripped from distibuted Cygwin binaries, so any
> symbols that you
> see in gdb are basically meaningless. It is also a
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:29:36PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>
>> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:12:31PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>> > >Tracking it down with GDB to cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06 was easy.
>> >
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:0
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:12:31PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
> > >Tracking it down with GDB to cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06 was easy.
> >
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:04:55 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > Since cygwin isn't built with d
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 12:47:33PM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:12:31PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>> >Tracking it down with GDB to cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06 was easy.
>>
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:04:55 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Since cygwin is
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:12:31PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
> >Tracking it down with GDB to cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06 was easy.
>
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:04:55 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Since cygwin isn't built with debugging symbols, the symbols that you do
> see in gdb are ba
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:12:31PM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>Larry Hall wrote:
>
>> I have the following suggestions/questions:
>
>> 1. Did you try a Cygwin 1.5.12 or even a snapshot?
>
>No. I'm using 1.5.10, and it still smells *real* fresh, I think ;-).
>
>Also, the problem only occurs on a
Larry Hall wrote:
> I have the following suggestions/questions:
> 1. Did you try a Cygwin 1.5.12 or even a snapshot?
No. I'm using 1.5.10, and it still smells *real* fresh, I think ;-).
Also, the problem only occurs on a customer system which unfortunately
I can't go around and upgrade all th
At 12:08 PM 1/20/2005, you wrote:
>Does no-one have any information on this?
Apparently not. ;-)
I have the following suggestions/questions:
1. Did you try a Cygwin 1.5.12 or even a snapshot?
2. Is this a local debug build of Cygwin or stock 1.5.10. If the
latter, you might find bui
74 matches
Mail list logo
