> Thanks for the patch and the report. I'll take a look at this in detail
> in the next couple of days. However, unfortunately, I think this is a
> large enough submission that it requires an assignment form.
Thanks for looking into it!
My assignment form is in the "snail".
- Tor
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:45:09AM -0700, Tor Perkins wrote:
>
>
>I think I've found two problems in fhandler_termios::bg_check():
>
> * Cygwin's tcsetpgrp function will return EIO when the process
>group for the calling process has no leader.
>
> * This appears to be caused by a leaderless p
I think I've found two problems in fhandler_termios::bg_check():
* Cygwin's tcsetpgrp function will return EIO when the process
group for the calling process has no leader.
* This appears to be caused by a leaderless process group being
interpreted as an orphaned process group.
Ple
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 04:42:26PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Apr 4 07:41, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> * include/cygwin/types.h: Move #include to
>> end of header so the latter get the dev_t typedef.
>> * include/sys/sysmacros.h (gnu_dev_major, gnu_dev_minor,
>> gnu_de
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 02:13:36AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 00:56 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> No, I duplicated this on Linux as well (after I tracked down a cocom
>> RPM), but that did make me think of other possibilities. The difference
>> seems to be if you p
On Apr 4 07:41, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> * include/cygwin/types.h: Move #include to
> end of header so the latter get the dev_t typedef.
> * include/sys/sysmacros.h (gnu_dev_major, gnu_dev_minor,
> gnu_dev_makedev): Prototype and define as inline functions.
> (majo
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:42:54PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 30/03/2011 22:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> Chris, are you going to take a look into this patch?
>>
>> yep.
>
>Attached is an updated version of the patch which
On 30/03/2011 22:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Chris, are you going to take a look into this patch?
>
> yep.
Attached is an updated version of the patch which fixes the warning identified
by Yaakov.
I've also attached a sligh
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 14:26 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 4 06:27, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > Alright, do I still bump CYGWIN_VERSION_API_MINOR for only inline
> > functions?
>
> No, that's not necessary.
>
> > What about posix.sgml?
>
> You can skip it as well.
Revised patch attac
On Apr 4 06:27, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 12:54 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Apr 4 01:19, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > I'll leave it to Corinna but I'd prefer not adding YA export if we can
> > > avoid it.
> >
> > This is very simple code, so I, too, would pref
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 12:54 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 4 01:19, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > I'll leave it to Corinna but I'd prefer not adding YA export if we can
> > avoid it.
>
> This is very simple code, so I, too, would prefer to keep it inline.
Alright, do I still bump CYGWIN
On Apr 3 18:58, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Linux, /proc/version also displays the username of the kernel
> compiler and the version of gcc used to compile[1]. This patch does the
> same for Cygwin:
> [...]
> * new-features.sgml (ov-new1.7.10): Document additional information
> in /
On Apr 4 01:19, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:11:51PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 19:55 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >+#define __INSIDE_CYGWIN_GNU_DEV__
> >>
> >> I'd prefer a more descriptive name like "__DONT_DEFINE_INLINE_GNU_DEV"
On Apr 3 16:54, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 23:33 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Apr 1 14:57, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > > For the sake of clarity, I would reorder it a bit further to
> > > make FH_PROC and friends to one side of major-0 and everything else to
> > >
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 00:56 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> No, I duplicated this on Linux as well (after I tracked down a cocom
> RPM), but that did make me think of other possibilities. The difference
> seems to be if you pass an absolute or relative path to the top-level
> configure script; o
15 matches
Mail list logo