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 be
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 the
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
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 be slow... I
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
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
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 code.
So, maybe
On 5/20/2013 11:58 AM, Andy Hall wrote:
snip
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
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 add an
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, of course,
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
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. Linux supports
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 BSD way, but POSIX
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
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
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 ?
Well... Can
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...
So, complete
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
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
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 couple of times on
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!
The reason for
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
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 reports:
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 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:
25 matches
Mail list logo
