X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_YG,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Yahoo-SMTP: jenXL62swBAWhMTL3wnej93oaS0ClBQOAKs8jbEbx_o- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:19:30 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Doubtful about unison Message-ID: <20110304151930.GD13985@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <4D6BFD09.8020600@gmx.de> <20110303164519.GA26936@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20110304094725.GA3480@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110304094725.GA3480@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Mar 4 08:08, Olivier Lefevre wrote: >> I think the english message should have been "The procedure >> entry point __ctype_ptr__ could not be located in the dynamic >> link library cygwin1.dll"; I mistranslated "procedure" as >> "program". So this just means that the procedure __ctype_ptr__ >> cannot be found in the DLL, correct? >> >> And is it a recent addition? I googled it but could not find >> any indication of when it was introduced. > >__ctype_ptr__ has been introduced into newlib July 2008. It's available >ever since. It has been introduced into Cygwin with all developer >snapshots later than that, and officially with the first 1.7.0 test >release. It was never introduced into Cygwin 1.5, though, given that >the last version, 1.5.25-15 was release in June 2008. > >So, if you got this error message, it means you were running an >application built for 1.7 under a 1.5 Cygwin DLL. Right: i.e., you're running a new application with an old DLL. I just went back and read this inexplicably long thread and see that, also inexplicably, no one asked for cygcheck output as requested by http://cygwin.com/problems.html . It's likely that this would have been detected many messages ago if you'd provided that. If I missed this in my archive spelunking then I apologize. Otherwise, I think there's a lesson here for us all. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple