X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_LR,TW_RW,TW_WX,TW_XR X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References:

<786EBDA1AC46254B813E200779E7AD36028CB0F6 AT srv1163ex1 DOT flightsafety DOT com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:01:00 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ctags recursion broken? From: Alan Thompson To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 Looking at the link on StackOverflow (from 2010) it may be that the xemacs version of ctags is overwriting the default version in /bin. Could this be the culprit? Alan Thompson On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alan Thompson wrote: > Hi - Yes, I'm sure: > >> find /bin -name '*tags*' | xargs ls -ldF > -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 85504 Jan 31 2009 /bin/ctags.exe* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 83968 Jan 31 2009 /bin/etags.exe* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 5411 Dec 21 2011 /bin/ocamltags* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 68608 Jan 31 2009 /bin/ootags.exe* >> ls -ldF /bin/ls /bin/vim /bin/gcc > lrwxrwxrwx 1 alathompson Domain Users 21 Oct 18 12:20 /bin/gcc -> > /etc/alternatives/gcc* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 101902 Feb 6 2012 /bin/ls* > lrwxrwxrwx 1 alathompson Domain Users 21 Oct 18 12:48 /bin/vim -> > /etc/alternatives/vim* >> >> uname -a > CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 ALAN-THO-LAP 1.7.16(0.262/5/3) 2012-07-20 22:55 i686 Cygwin >> > > One can see from the timestamp on the links for gcc and vim that I > installed Cygwin on 10/18/2012. However, it seems that both ctags and > etags are old versions of the program (circa 2007) and are not the > Exuberant Ctags version. However, the GNU documentation here: > http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Exuberant_Ctags clearly lists the > Exuberant Ctags, although it has only been updated as of 2004. > However, looking here: > http://cygwin.com/packages/ctags/ctags-5.8-1-src we see that cygwin > has Exuberant Ctags 5.8. Perhaps it is just a packaging issue that > caused the old one to be present and Exuberant Ctags 5.8 to be not > present? > > You can see from this thread: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2634001/any-idea-why-ctags-wont-recurse-on-cygwin/13810472#13810472 > that I'm not the only one who stumbled onto this problem. > > Where should we go from here? Could it just be a packaging problem? > Alan Thompson > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Thrall, Bryan > wrote: >> >> Are you sure you're using the ctags you think you are? >> >> $ ctags --help >> Exuberant Ctags 5.8, Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Darren Hiebert >> Compiled: Dec 11 2009, 11:42:40 >> Addresses: , >> http://ctags.sourceforge.net >> Optional compiled features: +wildcards, +regex, +internal-sort >> >> Usage: ctags [options] [file(s)] >> >> -R Equivalent to --recurse. >> >> >> Hope this helps! >> -- >> Bryan Thrall >> Principal Software Engineer >> FlightSafety International >> bryan DOT thrall AT flightsafety DOT com >> >> -- 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