From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4623 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2009 19:48:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 4616 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2009 19:48:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f218.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f218.google.com) (209.85.219.218) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:47:36 +0000 Received: by ewy10 with SMTP id 10so95850ewy.18 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:47:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.109.156 with SMTP id j28mr1672745ebp.79.1258832853612; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:47:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm668225eya.3.2009.11.21.11.47.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:47:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B084784.6020302@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:48:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The Some People Just Don't Know When To Stop Digging Cygwin-Talk Maiming List Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Use of Dual Core causes random failures building OpenJDK References: <20091121121218.GZ29173@calimero.vinschen.de> <20091121173625.GB9003@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4B083047.8050101@gmail.com> <4B08376D.9060408@gmail.com> <20091121185049.GA13903@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-q4/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 mike marchywka wrote: > Eh, this was supposed to be one non-controversial if tangential observation > that did happen to point to a likely issue relevant to OP and who > knows who starts out by reading a windoze env variable. I don't really > want to discuss this further, I didn't think it would get this > involved, you are probably right but FWIW. I'd imagine they are > supposed to be safe and a problem like this would have probably shown > up by now but I'm actually not all that sure that concurrent registry > updates would be tested all that much- > when is the last time you openned two registry editors while 5 > installs were running? ( rhetorical question LOL ). ARF ARF WOOF! plonk diddle-diddle-diddle-dee diddle plonk bong crash WOOF ARF BARK pling plong diddle diddle bong clang WOOF honk BARK plink bong ARF ARF! Say, CGF was right. This is a whole lot more fun! cheers, DaveK