Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:15:38 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 20040217 snapshot problem Message-ID: <20040219151538.GC16368@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com 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/