Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:31:02 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: fork on win95 Message-ID: <20010720013102.U730@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygdev Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <005101c11036$06368800$806410ac AT local> <20010719112939 DOT A5093 AT redhat DOT com> <008001c1109d$40bca7e0$806410ac AT local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <008001c1109d$40bca7e0$806410ac@local>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:53:31AM +1000 On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:53:31AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Faylor" > > > > Hmm. As I said, I actually tried my changes under Windows 95, so > > this will be difficult to track down, since I can't duplicate it. > > I'll see what sort of info I can generate for you, but I'm still pleading > time shortage right now. I'll generate a strace as a minimum (ie strace > sh -c ls) which should show the failure to fork(). Anything else that might > spark neurons? > > > Thanks for not saying "It worked fine in B20.1", by the way. :-) > > I forgot to mention that!. Doh!. But it worked fine in 1.1.8!!! Corinna