Re: GDB breaks in 1.3.3-2 on certain Win2000 machines -- something to try

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 01:46:27PM +0100, Bill Petheram wrote:
>I realized that.  I has already downloaded 1.3.3.2 and unpacked it and
>configured it.
>
>I am only doing this as in my 'spare time', I have other things to do.

There is not a single person reading this mailing list who is doing this
as their full-time job.  Or even their part-time job.

>You seem to be getting paranoid. Or is it me?

Paranoid?  No.  Frustrated?  Yes.

It's taken more than two weeks for the first hint that someone was
willing to debug this problem.  I'm happy that you are willing to
investigate the problem but you responded in a thread where I noted that
merely resending the same findings does not advance our knowledge of
this bug.  Your contribution to this thread was the basically null
information that you were going to be building a known broken version of
the DLL, essentially ignoring my attempts at providing extra debugging
info for the problem.

Perhaps you will discover something interesting by building a debugging
version of the 1.3.3 DLL.  You might have a breakthrough.  Who knows?
I *really* hope that you do.

We do need as many people as possible looking at this.  And, you are, of
course, perfectly welcome to ignore anything that I might ask.  I can
only suggest that you do not raise my hopes by responding to email where
I asked for data by observing that you have no plans on doing what I
asked.

cgf


>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:03:18AM +0100, Bill Petheram wrote:
>>>gdb doesn't work for me on Win2k. I am building a debug verion of gdb 
>>>and 1.3.3-2. I hope to have more info late.
>>>
>>
>>You are responding to a message where I indicated that I added some
>>extra debugging to the CVS/snapshot version of cygwin.  I didn't
>>retroactively add it to 1.3.3.
>>
>>Why are you responding to a message indicating that there is an updated
>>version to try with the announcement that you are going to try the old
>>version?
>>
>>cgf
>>
>>
>>>'cgf@redhat.com' wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just in case this got lost in my previous long-winded email, it would be
>>>>helpful if people could try the latest cygwin snapshot and report if the
>>>>problem has changed.
>>>>
>>>>It would be even more helpful if people could build a debugging version
>>>>of cygwin and report on the gdb stack trace, if it still fails.  I
>>>>suspect that it *will* still fail as I didn't really do anything
>>>>substantial that would have fixed the problem.
>>>>
>>>>However, the stack trace should now be slightly more informative.
>>>>
>>
>>--
>>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>>Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

-- 
cgf@cygnus.com                        Red Hat, Inc.
http://sources.redhat.com/            http://www.redhat.com/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/