On Sep 6 21:34, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2021-09-06 15:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > On 9/6/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 14:40 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > > No, wait. I get what you say. The optimzation settings o
On 07/09/2021 23:44, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>
> MS can't add a new named field to a documented struct without
breaking a lot of code. I think it's extremely unlikely that they would
do that. On the other hand, I think it's very likely that a reader of
the Cygwin code would be confused by c
On 9/7/2021 5:52 PM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
With undocumented structure member initialization an issue, maybe better to
future proof using e.g.
MEM_EXTENDED_PARAMETER mmap_ext = { 0 }; // or memset or bzero
I don't see what this would accomplish. We're already init
> >
> > With undocumented structure member initialization an issue, maybe better to
> > future proof using e.g.
> >
> > MEM_EXTENDED_PARAMETER mmap_ext = { 0 }; // or memset or bzero
>
> I don't see what this would accomplish. We're already initializing every
> member
> after Corinna's last
Hi Ken,
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 17:24 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> You're looking at the wrong source code. The bug didn't occur until
> the code
> was changed to do the following:
You are right. I do not know why i looked at an old checkout of the
code. Shame on me! Sorry for wasting you
On 9/6/2021 11:34 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2021-09-06 15:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
Hi there,
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 14:40 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
No, wait. I get what you say. The optimzation settings of the test
case should h
On 2021-09-06 15:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
Hi there,
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 14:40 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
No, wait. I get what you say. The optimzation settings of the test
case should have no influence on the code inside the DLL
On 9/6/2021 5:24 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
Hi there,
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 14:40 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
No, wait. I get what you say. The optimzation settings of the test
case should have no influence on the code inside the DLL
On 9/6/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
Hi there,
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 14:40 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
No, wait. I get what you say. The optimzation settings of the test
case should have no influence on the code inside the DLL. That
doesn't
make sense for sure. However, I r
Hi there,
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 14:40 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > No, wait. I get what you say. The optimzation settings of the test
> > case should have no influence on the code inside the DLL. That
> > doesn't
> > make sense for sure. However, I ran the testcase under GDB, I could
Hi there,
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 14:40 -0400, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > No, wait. I get what you say. The optimzation settings of the test
> > case should have no influence on the code inside the DLL. That
> > doesn't
> > make sense for sure. However, I ran the testcase under GDB, I could
On 9/6/2021 2:07 PM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
On Sep 6 19:59, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
On Sep 6 13:38, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 1:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 11:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
On Sep 5 09:24, Ken Brown via Cyg
On Sep 6 19:59, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> On Sep 6 13:38, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > On 9/6/2021 1:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > > On 9/6/2021 11:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > On Sep 5 09:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > > On 9/4/2021 8:04 PM,
On Sep 6 13:38, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> On 9/6/2021 1:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > On 9/6/2021 11:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> > > On Sep 5 09:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > On 9/4/2021 8:04 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > > On 9/4/2021 6:58 PM, Ken
On 9/6/2021 1:38 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 1:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 11:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
On Sep 5 09:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 8:04 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:58 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wr
On 9/6/2021 1:12 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/6/2021 11:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
On Sep 5 09:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 8:04 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:58 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
Here are the correct commits:
8169e39ab Cyg
On 9/6/2021 11:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
On Sep 5 09:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 8:04 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:58 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
Here are the correct commits:
8169e39ab Cygwin: C++17: register keyword is deprecated
3ca80b3
On Sep 5 09:24, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 8:04 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > On 9/4/2021 6:58 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> > > Here are the correct commits:
> > >
> > > 8169e39ab Cygwin: C++17: register keyword is deprecated
> > > 3ca80b360 Cygwin: dumper: fix up GCC pr
On 9/4/2021 8:04 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:58 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:54 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:37 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
I've reduced the procps failure to the following test case:
$ cat mmap_test.c
#include
#include
On 9/4/2021 6:58 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:54 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:37 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
I've reduced the procps failure to the following test case:
$ cat mmap_test.c
#include
#include
#include
int
main ()
{
void *addr;
int pa
On 2021-09-04 16:37, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
I've reduced the procps failure to the following test case:
$ cat mmap_test.c
#include
#include
#include
int
main ()
{
void *addr;
int page_size = getpagesize ();
addr = mmap (0, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP
On 9/4/2021 6:54 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
On 9/4/2021 6:37 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
I've reduced the procps failure to the following test case:
$ cat mmap_test.c
#include
#include
#include
int
main ()
{
void *addr;
int page_size = getpagesize ();
addr = mmap (0, page
On 9/4/2021 6:37 PM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
I've reduced the procps failure to the following test case:
$ cat mmap_test.c
#include
#include
#include
int
main ()
{
void *addr;
int page_size = getpagesize ();
addr = mmap (0, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP
I've reduced the procps failure to the following test case:
$ cat mmap_test.c
#include
#include
#include
int
main ()
{
void *addr;
int page_size = getpagesize ();
addr = mmap (0, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
if (addr == MAP_FA
24 matches
Mail list logo
