X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Eric Blake Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated [security]: bash-3.2.49-23 and Windows 7 RC Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <4A4D200E DOT 9050401 AT sidefx DOT com> <4A4D2342 DOT 6050400 AT sidefx DOT com> <4A4D4BA8 DOT 8090202 AT byu DOT net> <4A4E09CC DOT 4050904 AT sidefx DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Edward Lam sidefx.com> writes: > > 61020293 looks like an address in the dll range, probably cygwin1.dll. It > > would be nice to know what function is dying, but doing that may require > > rebuilding a bash image with debugging symbols. Did you by chance do any > > rebasing? Maybe this is a case where I didn't use the correct gcc-4 flags > > for compilation, at which point an updated binutils/gcc might fix things. > > No, I didn't do any rebasing. I also tried using rebaseall and > peflagsall to no avail. I'm wondering if the problem is not how I compiled bash, but how I compiled readline. Dave, any pointers I should try or maybe a missed compiler flag I should have used to build libreadline7 with gcc4? I'm shooting in the dark, since I can't seem to reproduce the crash. > > Incidentally, is installing the bash and libreadline source broken? If I > install the src for say, the make package, it installs it into a > subdirectory under /usr/src. But when I tried to do the same for > bash-3.2.49-23, I just got a bash src tar ball along with a bunch of > patch files. Is this expected? It's more than just patch files - it also includes the .cygport file that uses those patch files. So yes, this is expected; quoting /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/bash.README: Build instructions: unpack bash-3.2.49-23-src.tar.bz2 if you use setup to install this src package, it will be unpacked under /usr/src automatically cd /usr/src cygport bash-3.2.49-23 all -- Eric Blake -- 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