X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=dz m6RnZWabLdCbkaWy6+6t77wfGzymnAtAMyzGG5vm6Ir7JXhJ8eqGVIyFDSj9qCoW Z+/v+BQiFkmveZrc5JrSS+yXlDmyJDG7U5ow5w04GmqO6egVp5hFjIgfr7Qj6ovg g8a6IQroOh+gAu7speCux/zKjic0SLfZhcDCyX+X8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=zcoX6fPd F5sc/GqB2ceeGy+kBLg=; b=W4VqSFZgYvFedo8DstpJ/zPi69Nw2X+0kKFzSZTq Dy4e2vt9mlSw+7z24HppcKnPmQfUv5HJiuO+4OPdz9FMIslXiVLilmh/o/IJj2m6 BRIZNACIHiJchH4KVJhzhDf5ha8zISI5f+wnVQpwgQHV4eg0yzJmlwcaO4RtNURn r/Y= 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-lb0-f179.google.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.166.2 with SMTP id zc2mr732638lbb.98.1407139500345; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 01:05:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53DEDBBA.20102@cornell.edu> References: <53DB8D23 DOT 7060806 AT alice DOT it> <20140801133225 DOT GD25860 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <53DEDBBA DOT 20102 AT cornell DOT edu> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:05:00 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: (call-process ...) hangs in emacs From: Peter Hull To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Ken Brown wrote: > That does seem to be the problem, since I can reproduce the bug starting > with the 2014-07-14 snapshot. More precisely, I can reproduce it using > emacs-nox (which is what the OP was using according to his cygcheck output) > but not using emacs-X11 or emacs-w32. Thanks for your help in resolving this. I am indeed using emacs-nox. Do you think emacs-x11 or emacs-w32 would be a good alternative to work round the problem in the short term? Peter -- 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