Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/07/03/10:32:48
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:30:10PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:19:42AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:47:28AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >Do you mean something like this:
>> >
>> > If addr is given, check if it's 64K aligned. If not, align and
>> > raise the memory requirement accordingly. Call MapViewOfFileEx
>> > with the aligned address. If it works, return the addr given as
>> > parameter, otherwise return MapViewOfFileEx(NULL).
>>
>> How about, instead, just use the address and if it fails and is not
>> MAP_FIXED, use MapViewOfFileEx without the address?
>
>Yep, that's the simple approach. I dropped this suggestion from my
>original reply since it requires addr to be on a 64k boundary.
>Unfortunately I have no idea if the chance to succeed might be better
>or worse than using the more complex approach.
>
>Either way, it's not us but gcc being on the wrong track. If gcc relies
>on getting the same address it should use MAP_FIXED at least on hosts
>known to support MAP_FIXED correctly.
Anyone want to try patching gcc and sending a message to gcc-patches?
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -