On 02/12/2015 00:16, John J Ottusch wrote:
Makes sense that it could be run.exe behavior.
However, the version of run.exe from [2] (which is 220K in size vs. 68K
for the original version ?!?) does not seem to do anything. Running it
from a CMD window with urxvtermX.bat as the argument does not
> I think this is not a problem with the X server, but with the Cygwin
run
> utility, which is supposed to run the .bat file with a hidden console.
> See [1] a previous discussion of this problem.
> I've built an x86_64 run.exe with that patch applied and uploaded it
at
> [2]. Perhaps you
On 29/11/2015 02:56, John J Ottusch wrote:
I use CYGWIN a lot with 64-bit Windows 7 and have been transitioning
from 32-bit CYGWIN to 64-bit CYGWIN primarily in hopes of avoiding
repeated STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION errors.
If I could set up 64-bit CYGWIN (= C64) to behave exactly the same way
as
I use CYGWIN a lot with 64-bit Windows 7 and have been transitioning
from 32-bit CYGWIN to 64-bit CYGWIN primarily in hopes of avoiding
repeated STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION errors.
If I could set up 64-bit CYGWIN (= C64) to behave exactly the same way
as my 32-bit CYGWIN (= C32) set up I would,
