Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/02/19/10:16:34
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:51:01AM -0500, Richard Campbell wrote:
>>There are some changes in the latest snapshot that may make inetd
>>work better. I tracked down a stupid error that I'd introduced after
>>1.5.7.
>
>Under the 20040218 snapshot, when trying to start X, inetd does not spin
>out of control CPU-wise.
>
>However, XWin.exe does not start.
>
>I tried "strace -o strace_out --mask=all XWin.exe":
>
>20040217 - 0 bytes of output in strace_out
>20040218 - 0 bytes of output in strace_out
>1.5.7-1 - 2 megabytes of output in strace_out, roughly, after shutting down X at the
> first opportunity.
If strace is not producing any output at all, and there is no
xwin.exe.stackdump file then that would point something wrong on your
end. I have no idea what could cause this behavior.
Can anyone else confirm this behavior and provide more details and maybe
a theory on what's going wrong? I'm not seeing it at all.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -