Re: Problems with 20110801 snapshot

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Aug  3 01:01, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> I am having the following issues with the 20110801 snapshot:
> 
> * Previously I had my DLLs rebased from 0x80000000 up, but now, all
> fork() calls failed until I rebased from 0xffff0000 down.

Yes, that was to be expected.  Sorry about that.  However, since DLLs
will stay in the range below 0x80000000 by default anyway, I was mulling
over a way to utilize the large address area.  And then it occured to me
that it's the ideal playfield for the heap.  See
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2011-q3/msg00032.html
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2011-q3/msg00033.html

> * Opening multiple VTE-based terminals (gnome-terminal, Xfce Terminal,
> etc.), or even one after a mintty terminal is already open, produces the
> following message when starting a bash login shell:
> 
> > -bash: cannot set terminal process group (-1): Inappropriate ioctl for device
> > -bash: no job control in this shell
> 
> In which case, launching a ncurses app (e.g. less or nano) displays on
> the first terminal which didn't have such a warning.  And when closing
> such a terminal, a warning about a process still running in that
> terminal appears even though there is none.

Is that a new one in 20110801?  The change set doesn't look like it
could introduce this.  Can you please look which snapshot introduced
this issue?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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