X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Schmidt, Oliver" To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:53:06 +0100 Subject: Re: Cygwin 1.7: Concurrency Issue with Shared State Initialization Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Hi Christopher, >>Please find attached the requested information. However I had to edit >>it - as carefully as possible - to omit hints on the SAP-internal IT >>infrastructure. >Thanks. It would be nice if we could come up with some way to make >cygcheck not output sensitive information but I doubt that there's any >foolproof heuristic that we could use and, if we added an option, people >might trust it unduly. My remark wasn't meant at all as criticism. I rather wanted to apologize for not fully following the instructions - which I understood to say to attach the output straight as-is. >>The sporadic failures I reported originally were experienced too by >>colleagues running 1.7.1 on Vista-32 and Vista-64. They too can avoid >>it by running the Cygwin shell in another window during the build. >No one is doubting that problems exist. That's why we're working >on them. Sorry for again being unclear. The information above was soley meant to complement the cygcheck output - which was produced on my XP-64 machine - trying to say that the issue seems to be not tied to a certain OS variant. Regards, Oliver -- 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