Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> I can confirm that the 2006-Jun-27 snapshot (which is what he meant)
> fixes the longstanding issues WRT qt3 and company. Thanks to all who
> helped figure this out, and I look forward to restarting work on qt3,
> qt4, and KDE 3.5 in the near future.
Sigh. That's
Ralf Habacker wrote:
> I just downloaded cywin snapshot 2005-06-27 and got running designer and
> uic without any problem, so it looks like there is no need to deep
> more into this stuff. I will follow the next time if this problems takes
> places again.
I can confirm that the 2006-Jun-27 snapsh
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 12:04:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 01:04:52PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>> I just downloaded cywin snapshot 2005-06-27 and got running designer and
>> uic without any problem, so it looks like there is no need to deep
>> more into this stu
> That's just a tad old there, Ralf.
> Tried any of the more recent snapshots at http://www.cygin.com/snapshots/ ?
Mistype.
http://www.cygwin.com/snapshots/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 01:04:52PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> I just downloaded cywin snapshot 2005-06-27 and got running designer and
> uic without any problem, so it looks like there is no need to deep
> more into this stuff. I will follow the next time if this problems takes
> places again.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Habacker schrieb:
> Brian Dessent schrieb:
>>> Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>>
There is only one case where I still believe that there may be a problem.
If a pthread_mutexattr_t is constructed on the stack and the magic class
membere is be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Dessent schrieb:
> Ralf Habacker wrote:
>
>> There is only one case where I still believe that there may be a problem.
>> If a pthread_mutexattr_t is constructed on the stack and the magic class
>> membere is be exactly the predefined value, pth
Ralf Habacker wrote:
> There is only one case where I still believe that there may be a problem.
> If a pthread_mutexattr_t is constructed on the stack and the magic class
> membere is be exactly the predefined value, pthread_mutexattr_init()
> will return EBUSY, although there is no good object,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Dessent schrieb:
> [ I realized that a couple of points in this thread were never addressed -- we
> sort of got side tracked on the GDB issue. I just want to reply to these
> points
> and try to convince you that this bug you see does not exist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Korn schrieb:
> On 24 May 2006 13:19, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>
>> This breakpoint is never reached (at least in released gdb) and makes it
>> hard to debug cygwin's threading stuff, probably impossible in this area.
>
> How many times do you hav
[ I realized that a couple of points in this thread were never addressed -- we
sort of got side tracked on the GDB issue. I just want to reply to these points
and try to convince you that this bug you see does not exist. People have a
tendency to point to the archives and say "lookee, it's broke
clayne@ wrote:
BTW:
Myself, I had just updated to CVS gdb. Currently it looks like SIGINT is busted
(well atleast initiating via ctrl-c) and performance under gdb is crap (probably
because I'm trying to debug something with millions of objects - each with their
own mutexes).
Hmm, build problem
On 25 May 2006 04:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 07:06:32PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> YES, THERE IS A WAY!
>>
>> WHAT IS MORE YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD IT EXPLAINED TO YOU A DOZEN TIMES IN
>> THIS THREAD!
>>
>> THE WAY IS TO USE AN UP-TO-DATE GDB!
>
> BTW:
>
> Myself
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 07:06:32PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> YES, THERE IS A WAY!
>
> WHAT IS MORE YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD IT EXPLAINED TO YOU A DOZEN TIMES IN THIS
> THREAD!
>
> THE WAY IS TO USE AN UP-TO-DATE GDB!
BTW:
Myself, I had just updated to CVS gdb. Currently it looks like SIGINT
On 24 May 2006 17:13, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Brian Dessent schrieb:
>> Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>
>> And yes, it used to be that gdb was too dumb to recognise that these
>> faults in IsBadReadPtr were not actual faults, and it would print them
>> as spurious SIGSEGVs, just as it currently does for "
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Dessent schrieb:
> Ralf Habacker wrote:
>
> And yes, it used to be that gdb was too dumb to recognise that these
> faults in IsBadReadPtr were not actual faults, and it would print them
> as spurious SIGSEGVs, just as it currently does for "myfa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Habacker schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> If this would be my project I would add such unit test cases as far as
> possible. Because pthread-win32 is also hosted on sources.redhat.com it
> may be possible to relicense the test application to cygwin easier
On 24 May 2006 13:19, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> This breakpoint is never reached (at least in released gdb) and makes it
> hard to debug cygwin's threading stuff, probably impossible in this area.
How many times do you have to be told? The last released gdb is known to
not cope with this. IT IS
On 24 May 2006 13:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Actually, is this really a fault in gdb? Cygwin is throwing a SIGSEGV
>>> signal, correct? GDB does what it's told, stops on SIGSEGV by default.
>>>
>>> -cl
>>
>> But it doesn't inte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Dessent schrieb:
> Ralf Habacker wrote:
>
>> There is no segfault, but it does not work as expected e.g.
>> pthread_mutexattr_init() does not fill the pthread_mutexattr_t struct
>> given as parameter.
>
> How does it not work? The testcase run
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, is this really a fault in gdb? Cygwin is throwing a SIGSEGV signal,
> correct? GDB does what it's told, stops on SIGSEGV by default.
Not really. In cases where it is checking parameters or otherwise
expects to dereference an invalid pointer, Cygwin installs a
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > Actually, is this really a fault in gdb? Cygwin is throwing a SIGSEGV
> > signal, correct? GDB does what it's told, stops on SIGSEGV by default.
> >
> > -cl
>
> But it doesn't interact properly with cygwin's exception handling -> si
On 24 May 2006 11:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 01:49:53AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>> Sigh. We've been through this ad nauseum in the archives. This is how
>> it's supposed to work, there's nothing wrong here. Gdb doesn't know any
>> better though, and reports it as
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 01:49:53AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Sigh. We've been through this ad nauseum in the archives. This is how
> it's supposed to work, there's nothing wrong here. Gdb doesn't know any
> better though, and reports it as a SIGSEGV, when it is not. Did you not
> notice tha
Ralf Habacker wrote:
> There is no segfault, but it does not work as expected e.g.
> pthread_mutexattr_init() does not fill the pthread_mutexattr_t struct
> given as parameter.
How does it not work? The testcase runs fine for me with no assertion
failures, neither from a prompt nor in (CVS) gdb.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Dessent schrieb:
> Ralf Habacker wrote:
>
>> Running this testcase results in an internal exception in
>> pthread_mutexattr_init()
>>
>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> 0x610b1005 in pthread_mutexattr_init (attr=0x404040)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:20:28PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>> your right, hope the above mentioned stuff help for this.
>
> Ralf,
> You have the test case. You have the source code. You've already
> provided a patch
Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Running this testcase results in an internal exception in
> pthread_mutexattr_init()
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x610b1005 in pthread_mutexattr_init (attr=0x404040) at
> ../../../../src/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc:129
> 129 if ((*object)->m
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:20:28PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>your right, hope the above mentioned stuff help for this.
Ralf,
You have the test case. You have the source code. You've already
provided a patch. What's stopping you from determinging the cause of
the problem now that you understa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 08:13:24PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dave Korn schrieb:
>>> On 23 May 2006 18:10, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh no, not this old saw a
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 08:13:24PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Dave Korn schrieb:
>> On 23 May 2006 18:10, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>
>> Oh no, not this old saw again!
>>
>>> C:\cygwin\home\Habacker\src\pthreads-snap-2005-03-08\tests>strace
>>> mu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Korn schrieb:
> On 23 May 2006 18:10, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>
> Oh no, not this old saw again!
>
>> C:\cygwin\home\Habacker\src\pthreads-snap-2005-03-08\tests>strace
>> mutex1n | grep C005
>> - --- Process 4872, exception C005 at 610B1
On 23 May 2006 18:10, Ralf Habacker wrote:
Oh no, not this old saw again!
> C:\cygwin\home\Habacker\src\pthreads-snap-2005-03-08\tests>strace
> mutex1n | grep C005
> - --- Process 4872, exception C005 at 610B1005
> 155 78759 [main] mutex1n 4872 _cygtls::handle_exceptions: In
> cygw
Ralf Habacker wrote:
> C:\cygwin\home\Habacker\src\pthreads-snap-2005-03-08\tests>strace
> mutex1n | grep C005
> - --- Process 4872, exception C005 at 610B1005
> 155 78759 [main] mutex1n 4872 _cygtls::handle_exceptions: In
> cygwin_except_handler exc 0xC005 at 0x610B1005 sp 0x22CC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
> It would appear that changes to the cygwin1.dll since 1.5.18-1 (and
> before the 20051207 snapshot) have broken Qt3. The relevant threads
> until now:
It looks that this problem is not limited to qt3 because the following
simple test applic
35 matches
Mail list logo
