On Feb 23 21:49, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 15:19 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 21 18:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Btw., in how far is XWin broken? I just tried to start it from the
> > > start menu and that worked perfectly fine. I get the default xterm
> >
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 15:19 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 21 18:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Btw., in how far is XWin broken? I just tried to start it from the
> > start menu and that worked perfectly fine. I get the default xterm
> > and that works.
>
> I really need something repr
Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> > > I'm sorry to report that the 20120220 snapshot breaks the X server,
>> > > which uses fcntl() with a lock file.
>> >
>> > STC?
>>
>> Btw., in how far is XWin broken? I just tried to start it from the
>> start menu and that worked perfectly fine. I get the default
Hi Yaakov,
On Feb 21 18:09, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 21 09:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 20 19:29, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> > > > hard
On Feb 21 09:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 20 19:29, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> > > hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils
On Feb 20 19:29, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> > hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils down
> > to the fact that my last round of patche
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 15:17 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils down
> to the fact that my last round of patches back in August were not
> actually fixing the pr
On 2/20/2012 6:17 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> As always, thanks for the testcase. I think I found the problem. It's
> hard to explain if you don;t know how the code works, but it boils down
> to the fact that my last round of patches back in August were not
> actually fixing the problem, but on
On Feb 18 13:51, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 8:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 16 07:56, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> I read the Linux man page again (http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock)
> >>> and I just hacked the following
On 2/16/2012 8:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 16 07:56, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> I read the Linux man page again (http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock)
>>> and I just hacked the following testcase, based on your flock STC.
>>
>> That sounds
On Feb 16 07:56, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I read the Linux man page again (http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock)
> > and I just hacked the following testcase, based on your flock STC.
>
> That sounds pretty close to what the APR test case is doing,
On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 14:14, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/15/2012 1:20 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> But.
On Feb 15 14:14, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 1:20 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> But... now one of the flock tests is failing. It take
On 2/15/2012 1:20 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? A
On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
> >>> found the problem. I appl
On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
>>> found the problem. I applied a patch which fixes the problem for me
>>> and, s
On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
> > found the problem. I applied a patch which fixes the problem for me
> > and, surprise!, the flock test still runs fine, too. I'
On 2/15/2012 7:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Did I mention that I hate synchronization problems? Anyway, I think I
> found the problem. I applied a patch which fixes the problem for me
> and, surprise!, the flock test still runs fine, too. I've just uploaded
> a new snapshot. Please give it
On Feb 14 13:43, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 10:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 14 09:58, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >> On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> > The
On 2/14/2012 10:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 09:58, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. T
On Feb 14 09:58, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >>> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
> >>> test case failed with 1.7.9 with a
On 2/14/2012 6:45 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
>>> test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
>>> corrected. The test
On Feb 14 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> > The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
> > test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
> > corrected. The test is no longer encountering the fatal error, but
>
On Feb 14 00:00, David Rothenberger wrote:
> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
> test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
> corrected. The test is no longer encountering the fatal error, but
> it is producing the wrong result.
Thanks for the
On 2/14/2012 12:00 AM, David Rothenberger wrote:
> The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks.
I forgot to mention that this same test is failing in the libapr1 test
suite when using fcntl locks. I haven't extracted an STC for that, but
it's probably very similar to the previous one
The libapr1 test cases are failing again for flock locks. This same
test case failed with 1.7.9 with a fatal error[1], but that was
corrected. The test is no longer encountering the fatal error, but
it is producing the wrong result.
I extracted the attached STC to demonstrate the problem. It start
On 8/29/2011 6:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 27 15:27, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 8/27/2011 1:37 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have
On Aug 27 15:27, David Rothenberger wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 1:37 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> >>> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
> >>> bombing with this message:
> >>>
> >>>
On 8/27/2011 1:37 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
>>> bombing with this message:
>>>
>>> *** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC035
>>>
On Aug 26 13:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> > For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
> > bombing with this message:
> >
> > *** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC035
> >
> > I finally took some time to investigate and
On Aug 25 17:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
> For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
> bombing with this message:
>
> *** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC035
>
> I finally took some time to investigate and have extracted a STC
> that demonstrates the problem.
For a while now, the test cases that come with libapr1 have been
bombing with this message:
*** fatal error - NtCreateEvent(lock): 0xC035
I finally took some time to investigate and have extracted a STC
that demonstrates the problem.
It's been a decade since I did any C programming, so I'm
32 matches
Mail list logo
