Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID: <03F4742D8225D21191EF00805FE62B990205E17F@AA-MSG-01>
From: John Wiersba <John DOT Wiersba AT medstat DOT com>
To: cygwin users <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: RE: cat broken
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:02:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 1:57 PM
> To: cygwin users
> Subject: RE: cat broken

...<SNIP>...

> Let's restate this:  It isn't cat that is broken but the 
> terminal emulation
> within the cygwin dll.

OK, I believe this.  the cygwin dll terminal emulation is fixed in the 6/10
release.

> "Stable release"?  Well all of the snapshots are ALPHA 
> untested releases.  If a
> user suggests that he is using a particular snapshot without 
> much headache it
> doesn't mean that there aren't bugs.

OK, I know this is still alpha or beta.  Obviously there are still bugs.
What I'm looking for is *relative* stability, not perfection.

> If you're "experimenting" then you'd better have a "test 
> plan" and a means of
> "fallback".  NOTE: the cygwin-inst only contains binaries of 
> importance to the
> maintenance and testing of the cygwin1.dll environment.  Such 
> things as mount,
> umount, cygwin1.dll, cygcheck, etc. and doesn't contain a 
> full installation of
> pre-built binaries.  The reason is that since the functions 
> called from the
> cygwin1.dll are dynamic, then the binaries which use those 
> functions don't need
> to be rebuilt to use the modified functions. 

If what you say is correct (and I'm hoping it is!), then I do have a "test
plan":  I simply throw away the broken version of cygwin1.dll and restore
the previous version.

> Therefore, IMO, 
> the "trace
> thingies" are not a result of incompatibility between 
> libraries and binaries;
> but, merely an inconvenient bug.

OK, then it appears that every snapshot since 5/24 has this bug in it.  I'm
not exactly sure why it is showing up so frequently in my environment.  I
saw this virtually every time when piping
   ls | grep | perl

Could these two bugs be related?  It seems that when the terminal emulation
bug went away, simultaneously the fhandler_base::fork_fixup bug appeared.

-- John

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com