From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Wiersba To: "'cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com'" Subject: RE: cat broken Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <03F4742D8225D21191EF00805FE62B990205E180@AA-MSG-01> X-SW-Source: 1999-06n/msg00611.html Message-ID: <19990630221000.P235dc5ZXlnYQu7jgLzSF6_v6vie2YKwBgfaFKo3Ik8@z> Actually, I tried a sample of the snapshots I found on ftp://go.cygnus.com/pub/sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/snapshots/ from the following list of dates: 0523 0524 0526 0528 0529 0530 0531 0601 0602 0603 0604 0605 0607 0608 0610 0612 0614 0615 I assumed that if it failed at the endpoints and also in the middle that it failed everywhere. After reading your email, I thought maybe I'd go out and try every one. It appears that the snapshot on 5/28 does *not* have the fhandler_base::fork_fixup bug. Thanks for spurring me on! Hopefully, 5/28 doesn't have any other new major bugs, either. -- John > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Faylor [ mailto:cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com ] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 3:13 PM > To: John Wiersba > Cc: cygwin users > Subject: Re: cat broken > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 03:02:58PM -0400, John Wiersba wrote: > >OK, then it appears that every snapshot since 5/24 has this > bug in it. I'm > >not exactly sure why it is showing up so frequently in my > environment. I > >saw this virtually every time when piping > > ls | grep | perl > > You've actually tried every snapshot from 5/24 and 6/15? > Wow. I can't > duplicate this problem, FWIW. It works fine for me. > > >Could these two bugs be related? It seems that when the > terminal emulation > >bug went away, simultaneously the > bug appeared. > > Probably not. > > -chris > -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com