Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> More to the point: I thought this had been tested. I will test it today
>> so we can put this whole thread to rest.
>>
>
> IIRC it was only tested insofar that it doesn't actually break. Not if
> it returns proper results.
>
I have tested it using the suggested script (corrected) and it passes
(both sizes the same) consistently, as I expected.
> Buf if my memory isn't completely off, there are other such cases as
> well around the code, where we've done proper fixes for native win32 and
> left cygwin alone. The argument being that for a developer system, it
> doesn't really matter if things aren't entirely reliable, and that
> nobody should be using cygwin for a production server. (I have nothing
> against using it for a dev box, though I wouldn't do it myself)
>
>
>
I don't recall any. But I could be wrong.
cheers
andrew
