Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Philippe Torche Subject: Re: Please try the latest snapshot -- it is close to cygwin 1.5.6 Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:29:56 +0100 Organization: JLE informatique Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <20031223222816 DOT GA23935 AT redhat DOT com> <20031226165329 DOT GA13619 AT redhat DOT com> Reply-To: philippe DOT torche AT jle DOT ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 In-Reply-To: <20031226165329.GA13619@redhat.com> Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:37:36PM +0100, Philippe Torche wrote: > >>Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>>The subject says it all. >>> >>>I'm hoping to release cygwin 1.5.6 shortly after Christmas. >> >>I've tested it (CVS version 12:35 GMT + 1) on our 4 Xeon on W2003S and >>unfortunately my previous test case (run_t.sh and t.sh) always fails. I've replace bash with sh and no problem anymore (not have wait enough maybe) ! A bash bug ? > > > Let me be extremely clear about this again: I don't have a 4 Xeon > processor running W2003S. I will not be able to test this and I, > frankly, don't care much about this corner case -- especially if it is > not a regression from previous releases. > > So, if you were just reporting this as a data point, then thanks. If > you are expecting me to do something about it, then, you will, > unfortunately, be disappointed. :-( Not you but other maybe ! If you show old threads, I'm not alone with this problem ! I can't give access to a multi CPU computer (client machine), but maybe somebody can ? > > >>The test suite runs soon happily (except now 3 cases) with my Athlon on >>WinXP, and I'm preparing to run it tomorrow on our 4 Xeon. :-) The test case give me the same result > > > I think I will have to give a gold star to the person who figures out > why those three cases are "failing". It really isn't that hard. > -- 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/