delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/11/23/15:20:51

X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20051123130713.01cd9508@cic-mail.lanl.gov>
X-Sender: u085598 AT cic-mail DOT lanl DOT gov
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:20:32 -0700
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Richard Kandarian <richard DOT kandarian AT lanl DOT gov>
Subject: Re: rcs 5.7 truncated one of my files
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Hmmmm.

I've removed cygwin from my system, and reinstalled it, and the problem 
seems to be gone. (I no longer have a problem with that particular file, 
and I have not exercised rcs beyond that.)

I mentioned that I'd updated my cygwin recently. That update entailed 
downloading a new (the current) version of setup.exe, and the subsequent 
operation of the new setup.exe was not error free. (It had been a very long 
time since the update prior to that one.) This, in addition to my rcs 
problem, made me think I should start from scratch. Unfortunately, in doing 
so I've probably destroyed all the evidence of what went wrong with that 
update.

This last cygwin installation was error free.

I apologize for the distraction.

>Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:58:12 -0700
>To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>From: Richard Kandarian <richard DOT kandarian AT lanl DOT gov>
>Subject: Re: rcs 5.7 truncated one of my files
>
>At 06:09 AM 11/23/2005, Eric Blake wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>According to Max Bowsher on 11/22/2005 4:14 PM:
>> >
>> > RCS has not been updated in years.
>>
>>Could it be that RCS is still using 32-bit offsets because it has not been
>>recompiled against newer cygwin headers to turn on 64-bit offsets?  You
>>can figure this out if the truncation is occuring on ,v files > 2 gig in 
>>size.
>>
>> > Can you find a way to reproduce the truncation?
>> > If you can, then it ought to be possible to find the problem.
>> > If you can't, this is likely going to remain an unsolved mystery.
>>
>>That is entirely true - without more details, especially a simple
>>testcase, very few people are motivated enough to try to help you resolve
>>the issue.
>>
>>- --
>>Life is short - so eat dessert first!
>>
>>Eric Blake             ebb9 AT byu DOT net
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
>>Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
>>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>>iD8DBQFDhGn284KuGfSFAYARAmu2AJ0Yfotdg2NbFfTQ+juPrr5lOmIcsQCeOEVO
>>k2buKt2w1f3VXxCgA03NB00=
>>=/0CJ
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>Who wants to have anything to do with a > 2 gig Perl script? Note the 
>other clue in the preceding question. I notice that rcs has to double the 
>@ characters it finds in Perl scripts.
>
>The new file
>$ ll mkbsub.ph
>-rw-r--r--  1 085598 None 34319 Nov 22 16:44 mkbsub.ph
>
>The initial release rcs file:
>$ ll RCS.bak/mkbsub.ph,v
>-r--r--r--  1 085598 None 32993 Nov 22 15:12 RCS.bak/mkbsub.ph,v
>
>The rcs file with the new file checked in
>$ ll RCS/mkbsub.ph,v
>-r--r--r--  1 085598 None 13515 Nov 22 16:27 RCS/mkbsub.ph,v
>
>The new file checked out
>$ ll mkbsub.ph
>-rw-r--r--  1 085598 None 1024 Nov 23 06:23 mkbsub.ph
>
>The part of RCS/mkbsub.ph,v that matches the truncation *exactly* but for 
>the nine doubled @ characters. That size includes a final \n which is not 
>in the truncated version.
>$ ll junk
>-rw-rw-rw-  1 085598 None 1034 Nov 23 06:33 junk
>
>I think the 1024 size of that penultimate file, mkbsub.ph, is very 
>interesting. I hadn't noticed that before.
>
>The truncated file matches the beginning of the second version but does 
>not match the beginning of the initial revision:
>
>$ diff -u0 junk mkbsub.ph
>--- junk        2005-11-23 06:42:11.001443900 -0700
>+++ mkbsub.ph   2005-11-23 06:23:29.741722500 -0700
>@@ -3,7 +3,3 @@
>....
>
>And junk, the equivalent portion of the initial revision, is 53 bytes 
>bigger with one @ character more.
>
>I'll see if I can come up with any theories which might help me produce an 
>example I can share.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Richard Kandarian
>http://www.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/fonelink.pl/085598
>Any opinions stated in this message are not expressed on behalf of any 
>individual or entity other than me unless explicitly noted otherwise. My 
>node in the Web: http://www.kandarian.com


Richard Kandarian
http://www.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/fonelink.pl/085598
Any opinions stated in this message are not expressed on behalf of any 
individual or entity other than me unless explicitly noted otherwise. My 
node in the Web: http://www.kandarian.com



--
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 -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019