Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:27:01 -0400 To: Andrew Dalgleish Cc: "'cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com'" Subject: Re: __small_sprintf Message-ID: <19990827002701.F15347@cygnus.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Dalgleish , "'cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com'" References: <00F8D6E8AB0DD3118F1A006008186C9603512F AT server1 DOT axonet DOT com DOT au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i In-Reply-To: <00F8D6E8AB0DD3118F1A006008186C9603512F@server1.axonet.com.au>; from Andrew Dalgleish on Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:05:17PM +1000 On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:05:17PM +1000, Andrew Dalgleish wrote: >> I'll have a close look at the NT build. >[Andrew Dalgleish] >I'm not 100% sure, but I think a process running in a separate DOS box >loaded an earlier version of the DLL just as the 2nd build started. >Is there an easy way to test the DLL in isolation? If you build the DLL with --enable-debugging then every DLL built will put an internal timestamp on the shared data like memory and semaphores. This will help isolate the DLL but the only really effective way to do it is to use only one DLL at a time. cgf