Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/07/06/05:28:08
>> --- winsup/cygwin/ntdll.h.old 2002-05-30 21:21:04.000000000 +0100
>> +++ winsup/cygwin/ntdll.h 2002-07-05 11:15:52.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ typedef struct _SYSTEM_PROCESSOR_TIMES
>> LARGE_INTEGER DpcTime;
>> LARGE_INTEGER InterruptTime;
>> ULONG InterruptCount;
>> + ULONG Unused;
>> } SYSTEM_PROCESSOR_TIMES, *PSYSTEM_PROCESSOR_TIMES;
>>
>> typedef LONG KPRIORITY;
>I will look at this patch tonight, but I would be grateful if you could
>answer the following questions:
>What version of binutils are you using?
I had been using 20011002-1. I've now retried with 20020630-2, and that
just crashes out with a return code of 128, when cygwin1.dll tries to
dereference a null pointer. (Sorry, I didn't think to try to track down
exactly where until after I'd recompiled with 20011002-1.)
>If you compiled Cygwin using just the 1.3.12 sources with no
>modifications, does /proc/uptime have any content?
I'd not tried that before, under the naïve assumption that I'd just be
recreating the released binary. But I have now done so, and find that even
using an unmodified ntdll.h works correctly.
Running both the original and my versions of cygwin1.dll through a
disassembler shows that the binary release is passing 0x2c as the structure
length, but that the newly-compiled one passes 0x30 (which is the effect I
was trying to achieve with the patch). Presumably the structure alignment
is different -- perhaps because it detected and compiled for i686 rather
than i386?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -