Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/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
X-WM-Posted-At: avacado.atomice.net; Sat, 6 Jul 02 11:45:57 +0100
Message-ID: <004501c224da$4f4fb750$0100a8c0@advent02>
From: "Chris January" <chris AT atomice DOT net>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <007401c224cf$457b64a0$fe0110ac AT lap>
Subject: Re: /proc/uptime etc. - NtQuerySystemInformation() needs bigger structure
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:45:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

> >> --- winsup/cygwin/ntdll.h.old 2002-05-30 21:21:04.000000000 +0100
> >> +++ winsup/cygwin/ntdll.h     2002-07-05 11:15:52.000000000 +0100
> >> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ typedef struct _SYSTEM_PROCESSOR_TIMES
> >>    LARGE_INTEGER DpcTime;
> >>    LARGE_INTEGER InterruptTime;
> >>    ULONG InterruptCount;
> >> +  ULONG Unused;
> >>  } SYSTEM_PROCESSOR_TIMES, *PSYSTEM_PROCESSOR_TIMES;
> >>
> >>  typedef LONG KPRIORITY;
> >I will look at this patch tonight, but I would be grateful if you could
> >answer the following questions:
> >What version of binutils are you using?
>
> I had been using 20011002-1.  I've now retried with 20020630-2, and that
> just crashes out with a return code of 128, when cygwin1.dll tries to
> dereference a null pointer.  (Sorry, I didn't think to try to track down
> exactly where until after I'd recompiled with 20011002-1.)
>
> >If you compiled Cygwin using just the 1.3.12 sources with no
> >modifications, does /proc/uptime have any content?
>
> I'd not tried that before, under the naïve assumption that I'd just be
> recreating the released binary.  But I have now done so, and find that
even
> using an unmodified ntdll.h works correctly.
>
> Running both the original and my versions of cygwin1.dll through a
> disassembler shows that the binary release is passing 0x2c as the
structure
> length, but that the newly-compiled one passes 0x30 (which is the effect I
> was trying to achieve with the patch).  Presumably the structure alignment
> is different -- perhaps because it detected and compiled for i686 rather
> than i386?
That the binary release is passing a different structure size seems to be an
artifact of Chris Faylor's compiler setup, AFICT. I think he's trying to
sort it out - see his post in this same thread.

Chris



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/