Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:10:45 -0400
From:	Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
To:	Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Quick testfeedback...
Message-ID:	<20010911111045.A2160@dothill.com>
Mail-Followup-To:	Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<1000209619.7293.196.camel@lifelesswks>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.18i

Rob,

On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 10:00:11PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> I have tested this out on win95 for regressions, but not on NT
> unfortunately... If some kind NT/2k user could test this I would be very
> appreciative.

I ran your test suite with the latest CVS and then again after applying
your patch.  In both cases, all tests except for pshared passed (as
to be expected).  However, after patching, pt skipped a lot of values.
Is this because the implementation is much faster?  I can send you the
output from make check, if necessary.

Also, broadcast.exe (prior to patching) GPF-ed with:

    The instruction at "0x6100f0cb" referenced memory at "0x00000000".
    The memory could not be "written".

Jason

- Raw text -