Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/01/05/12:00:13
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:55:09AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Brian Ford wrote:
>>Ok, after further investigation, this is a /3GB boot.ini flag
>>interaction. Unfortunately, this is a critical flag for our
>>application, so all our machines are configured this way. That is why
>>I failed to realize its significance before.
>>
>>I understand if this is now too much of an obscure case for you to be
>>interested in. If so, I'll try to look into it soon on my own. I
>>suspect it must have been related to your MEM_TOP_DOWN change.
>
>One more tidbit before I have time to find the real problem. Compiling
>the test case with -Wl,large-address-aware makes the test pass on a
>/3GB system.
Does that mean that this is a solution for you, Brian? If the
MEM_TOP_DOWN problem is just allocating memory in a place that an app
isn't prepared to deal with that seems like a lurking problem with the
app, anyway, since even without MEM_TOP_DOWN there is no guarantee that
the address from mmap will not show up in a problematic range of memory.
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 -