From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17591 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 10:02:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 17582 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 10:02:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_YG X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:01:53 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RNiV5-000807-1Q for cygwin@cygwin.com; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:01:51 +0100 Received: from 76-217-4-67.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net ([76.217.4.67]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:01:51 +0100 Received: from mark by 76-217-4-67.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:01:51 +0100 To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Mark Geisert Subject: Re: Problem with execution of binary file Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1320659540.5480.243.camel@kare-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 Mark Geisert (that's me) wrote: > I haven't yet diff'd the two cygchecks > you sent but maybe that'll lead somewhere. I've now done that. The 'good' cygcheck shows many more packages installed than the 'bad' cygcheck. But the only package version differences I found were for bzr, find and mercurial; the 'good' cygcheck paradoxically shows earlier versions for those three packages. Hard to see how those package differences could matter though. About the only thing I can think of, and it's a crazy idea, is that the 'good' environment, with more packages installed, is somehow supplying something that's emulated badly in the 'bad' environment. Figuring out if that's the case would involve building your executable with every possible "verbose" switch turned on so you can identify exactly where every item going into the executable is coming from. Repeated in both 'good' and 'bad' environments. Or, you could take heart that you've got a good build you can work with now and just run with that. Maybe somebody else has another approach to try. HTH, ..mark -- 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