Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:33:34 -0400
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
To: Geoffrey Noer <noer AT cygnus DOT com>
Cc: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Recent snapshots mount table lossage?  Help needed.
Message-ID: <19990504193334.A2797@cygnus.com>
References: <19990504163254 DOT A31355 AT cygnus DOT com> <19990504151021 DOT B17802 AT cygnus DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i
In-Reply-To: <19990504151021.B17802@cygnus.com>; from Geoffrey Noer on Tue, May 04, 1999 at 03:10:21PM -0700

On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 03:10:21PM -0700, Geoffrey Noer wrote:
>On Tue, May 04, 1999, Chris Faylor wrote:
>> I just had someone at Cygnus try a recent snapshot which I
>> optimistically thought would solve a problem they were seeing with
>> gdb.
>> 
>> The DLL seemed to unpack correctly but when I had the person do an
>> 'ls' nothing showed up.  The snapshot works for me, so I'm wondering
>> if there is some kind of mount table screwup somewhere?
>> 
>> Does anyone have a system which has only run B20.1 binaries that could
>> be pressed into service?  I'd like to try the newest DLL on such a
>> system along with the newest mount utility to see if the mount table is
>> correctly translated and if `ls' works correctly.
>
>I've heard of a problem where commands' output gets lost because of
>cygwin1.dll DLL conflicts but haven't seen a reproducible test case...

That is definitely a potential problem if there is more than one DLL.
That shouldn't have been the case here, though.

cgf