Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:40:39 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin 1.3.3, dumper.exe, question
Message-ID: <20010907214039.A19967@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010906214242 DOT A24962 AT redhat DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010907105638 DOT 04da7e78 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907105638.04da7e78@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 10:58:53AM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>Nits.  You'll catch them I'm sure but...
>
>At 09:42 PM 9/6/2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I'm going to be including dumper.exe with the next version of cygwin.
>>I've been meaning to do this for a long time and I keep forgetting.
>>
>>I'm going to mention this in the release notes:
>>
>>- dumper.exe now comes with cygwin releases by default.  With dumper.exe
>>   you can actually have linux produce linux-style core dumps.  To use,
>
>                          ^^^^^^^
>                          cygwin
>
>
>>       set CYGWIN=error_start=c:/cygwin/bin/dumper.cmd
>>
>>   Then if you cygwin application enters into a state where a core dump
>
>            ^^^^
>            your
>
>>   would be produced under linux (e.g., SIGSEGV, SIGBUS, etc.) dumper.exe
>>   will be called to produce it.  You can then use gdb to inspect the
>
>                                                                      ^^^^
>                                                                    result
>
>
>>Does this seem correct?  I will include a dumper.cmd file which just
>>has this in it:

Thanks for finding the typos.  I wonder how many others I have in my whole
announcement.

(rustle, rustle)
Hmm.  I seem to have given myself credit for a few things that I didn't do.
I've fixed that.

If someone notices me doing this in the future PLEASE let me know.  I don't
want to claim that I was responsible for others good work.

cgf