X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TW_YG
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 mux1.uit.no pA8BM1GL074872
From: =?utf-8?B?RWR2YXJkc2VuIEvDpXJl?= <kare DOT edvardsen AT uit DOT no>
To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Problem with execution of binary file
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:22:01 +0000
Message-ID: <1320751280.5480.279.camel@kare-desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id pA8BMQBP017025


> Mark Geisert (that's me) wrote:
> > I haven't yet diff'd the two cygchecks
> > you sent but maybe that'll lead somewhere.
> 
> I've now done that.  The 'good' cygcheck shows many more packages installed than
> the 'bad' cygcheck.  But the only package version differences I found were for
> bzr, find and mercurial; the 'good' cygcheck paradoxically shows earlier
> versions for those three packages.  Hard to see how those package differences
> could matter though.
> 
> About the only thing I can think of, and it's a crazy idea, is that the 'good'
> environment, with more packages installed, is somehow supplying something that's
> emulated badly in the 'bad' environment.  Figuring out if that's the case would
> involve building your executable with every possible "verbose" switch turned on
> so you can identify exactly where every item going into the executable is coming
> from.  Repeated in both 'good' and 'bad' environments.
> 
> Or, you could take heart that you've got a good build you can work with now and
> just run with that.  Maybe somebody else has another approach to try.
> HTH,
> 
> ..mark
>  

Yes, the 'good' installation was done Oct. 3 with many more packages
than the bad one. Just a week ago I wanted to install cygwin and run my
software on other machines, and then I ran into this problem. It's not a
paradox that the good installation has earlier package versions since it
was installed a month earlier than the bad one :)
So, my problem is now to isolate what has changed since then, which is
affecting the build of my fortran binary.

There is one thing I remember that is different now when I install a
required library (grib-api, see post
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-10/msg00037.html) 

I did not experience this hang back one month ago, but I've upgraded gcc
since then, and I wonder if the grib_api, and then my software, is
affected by this.

I will try to rebuild everything with gcc 4.3.4 too se if it helps, and
report the result to the list.

Cheers