Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/07/06/06:46:57
> >> --- 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?
That the binary release is passing a different structure size seems to be an
artifact of Chris Faylor's compiler setup, AFICT. I think he's trying to
sort it out - see his post in this same thread.
Chris
--
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 -