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
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 then
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 going to
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 the right
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
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 Cygwin
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 number
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 a public
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 (I am on all
On Mar 1 16:02, Dave Korn wrote:
Oh well. Time to install U/WIN?
Micro$fot are thinking of renaming that.
It's now going to be called THEY/WIN/WE/ALL/LOSE.
You mean Interix, don't you? U/Win is from ATT.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding
In the meanwhile, does anybody have any comments to offer regarding
this? (Besides stop asking, that is...)
Bash hangs. Both occurrences have been at the same specific script
line, and both produce similar gdb output.
Script line:
lffields[$counter]=`echo $lfline|cut -d'|' -f$fieldno`
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
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 \
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
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
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 / bash 3.0.
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 with what bash
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
At
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 cygwin snapshot!
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
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
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.
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 Faylor wrote:
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:
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 cygwin
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 the
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 that would
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 this occurs?
Can you
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
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 tried it?
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 as easy as
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 programming in
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.
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
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 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
It's a bit more complicated than that, but thank you for the valuable
input :-).
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
-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
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's an
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
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 that you
see in
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 snapshot
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 a
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 suspect the
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
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
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.
Should
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 been stripped
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 newbies
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
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 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 it. I'm
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 wondering
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?
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 available,
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 to any
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 can't
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 to check CVS or a
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 build
cd
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
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
error 6
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 means
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
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 the
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 customer
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
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 isn't built
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 debugging
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 15:04:55 -0500,
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 good
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
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 meaningless.
-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/questions:
1. Did you try a Cygwin
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
