This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Xggi/glide
- To: "Chris Faylor" <cgf@cygnus.com>, "Mumit Khan" <khan@xraylith.wisc.EDU>
- Subject: RE: Xggi/glide
- From: "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" <Ssiddiqi@InspirePharm.Com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:57:39 -0400
- Cc: "Cygwin-Xfree@Sourceware.Cygnus.Com" <cygwin-xfree@sourceware.cygnus.com>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:34:59PM -0500, Mumit Khan wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Chris Faylor wrote:
> >> Isn't this fixed in recent cygwin snapshots? There's still a
> chance that
> >> multiple files will get the same inode but it should not be as great as
> >> it once was.
> >
> >I've heard positive reports on newer snapshots. But, since you say that
> >there is a chance it might still happen, I'm going to disable the inode
> >based optimization in cpp to avoid future problems. This unfortunately
> >causes subtle and confusing compile time errors/glitches that are very
> >hard to track down, even for experienced users.
>
> I agree that this feature should be turned off for Windows. In
> actuality, it's possible (but even more unlikely) that NT 4.0 will have
> duplicate inodes, too.
>
> I just didn't think that people would be seeing many (any?) of these
> problems with recent snapshots.
>
> cgf
>
I compiled the winsup from july 05 snapshot.
The inode problem is fixed. I am using gcc-2.95. Actually
Xfree code with gcc-2.95 and July 05 snapshot compiles much cleaner. Most
of
the warning messages disappered.
Suhaib
PS: The previous messages with attachments were untintional. i intded to
sent
them to Mumit, but hit the reply to all. Sorry about it.