From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "William A. Gatliff" To: cygwin@cygwin.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [1.3.3] breaks serial i/o? Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 06:56:00 -0000 Message-id: <20011019085618.A5013@saturn.billgatliff.com> References: <20011018161003.A3059@saturn.billgatliff.com> <20011018222406.C11830@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00194.html Christopher: > >Suggestions, patches, signs of moral support, etc. would all be most > >graciously accepted. Thanks for the help, > > No suggestions, patches, or signs of moral support here. > > You realize that you had 52 lines in your message and the majority of > your text dealt with the reason why you need to have your problem fixed, > right? Uh, I appreciate the time you spent analyzing the text of my email, rather than its intent. Note that my request began with the word SUGGESTIONS. > It is a curious phenomenon that people often seem to think that > describing the fact that they are having a problem (with the usual > accompanying sense of urgency!) is just the same thing as actually > describing the problem in some detail. At the moment, you're looking at all the detail I've got. I've spent the last day making sure that other stuff wasn't broken too, I was hoping that someone would just say "oh yea, we know about that--- it won't be fixed for a while." Which would have given me all the information I needed. I did, in fact, get an answer like that. And then I got yours. > In the next expected step of this ritual bug reporting technique, a > cygwin guru is supoosed to smack their heads and say "Serial I/O?! > You're right! It's broken! Here's a fix." Unfortunately, that's > not the way it works. I realize that. You aren't dealing with your typical newbie here. > If you want this fixed in 1.3.4 then you'll have to provide a test > case which illustrates the problem or some kind of details that > would help someone track down the problem. For instance, I believe > that http://www.sysinternals.com/ has a utility for monitoring > serial I/O. It might be useful to see what's going on with that > utility to help track down the cygwin problem. Hmmm, maybe you *did* read the intent of my email after all? Perhaps I misjudged you... Nah. > Otherwise, if you can't provide details that would allow to debug > this, dropping back to 1.3.2 will be a short-term "solution" at best > since 1.3.2 will disappear when 1.3.4 is released -- any day now. Honestly, I'm actually thinking now that mingw would be a better long-term solution. I'm pulling all mention of Cygwin from the article. Thanks so much, b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com