From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67011 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2020 08:05:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 66999 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jan 2020 08:05:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=manifest, H*i:sk:9b37097, H*f:sk:9b37097, behaves X-HELO: vsmx009.vodafonemail.xion.oxcs.net Received: from vsmx009.vodafonemail.xion.oxcs.net (HELO vsmx009.vodafonemail.xion.oxcs.net) (153.92.174.87) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 08:05:43 +0000 Received: from vsmx001.vodafonemail.xion.oxcs.net (unknown [192.168.75.191]) by mta-5-out.mta.xion.oxcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9E5159DD83 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 08:05:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Otto (unknown [91.47.60.226]) by mta-5-out.mta.xion.oxcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 81247159DD85 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 08:05:38 +0000 (UTC) From: ASSI To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: headache on build repeatibility: octave vs BLODA ? References: <2904b4fa-6349-bd3e-c4ff-4b32a0bb3838@gmail.com> <87y2tvs278.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <9b370970-fcfe-cca9-321f-973de777642a@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 08:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <9b370970-fcfe-cca9-321f-973de777642a@gmail.com> (Marco Atzeri's message of "Sun, 26 Jan 2020 07:58:29 +0100") Message-ID: <878sluhcc1.fsf@Otto.invalid> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 Marco Atzeri writes: > at least I know that is not just my machine. > When I released the package was > > > libinterp/corefcn/file-io.cc-tst > ............................... PASS 90/90 Based on the test name there may be an assumption built into the code about how the filesystem behaves that isn't guaranteed on Windows/Cygwin or even POSIX. If it's simply an error condition not getting checked it should be reproducible under debugging, but you're mostly out of luck if it's relying on a specific order or atomicity of certain operations, as debugging will almost always serialize the execution to the point where these types of errors do not manifest. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple