X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Mark Geisert Subject: Re: Problem with execution of binary file Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <1320322806 DOT 5480 DOT 161 DOT camel AT kare-desktop> <4EB30E21 DOT 3090707 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> <1320396611 DOT 5480 DOT 196 DOT camel AT kare-desktop> <4EB3C378 DOT 6060308 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> <1320409986 DOT 5480 DOT 219 DOT camel AT kare-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 > Anyway, I've installed two versions of cygwin on the same machine - the > first was installed around Oct. 3 and the second one from a few days > ago. Compiling exactly the same software on both versions gives success > on the older installation and failure on the newer one. Could it be that [...] > Do you have any immediate idea of what could be the potential problem? Only immediate suggestions :). Run 'objdump -fp' on the two executables. Perhaps there's a difference between outputs that stands out or is meaningful to somebody on the list when you report it. Another thing you might try is 'cygcheck -svr' on the two Cygwin versions and compare output. That may show meaningful differences between the two versions. That will have a lot of output to sift through but any differences listed may point to something. ..mark -- 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