X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:46:12 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: 1.7.0 CVS mmap failure
Message-ID:	<20070111094612.GP23638@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701050959060 DOT 2704 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701051054010 DOT 280 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701051144030 DOT 2880 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20070105182234 DOT GC12776 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701051237090 DOT 2880 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20070105192302 DOT GD12776 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20070110095345 DOT GL23638 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701100903410 DOT 3236 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20070110161241 DOT GM23638 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20070111064421 DOT GG19638 AT ns1 DOT anodized DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20070111064421.GG19638@ns1.anodized.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Jan 10 22:44, Christopher Layne wrote:
> > On Jan 10 09:37, Brian Ford wrote:
> > > Yes, this fixes my STC and the application from which it was derived.
> > > Thanks.
> 
> BTW: a couple of things:
> 
> 1. Is there a possibility of another application or thread reserving that
> just alloc/free'd area right after using it to obtain (at that time) a
> valid address?

Yes, though unlikely.  Standard allocations are basically bottom-up,
mmap allocations are top-down.  As soon as malloc uses bigger chunks
(>128K), it uses mmap.  mmap is running in a critical section and
supposed to be thread-safe.

> 2. What exactly is the difference between using CreateFileMapping and
> MapViewOfFile vs what we're doing now which seems to use NtMapViewOfSection?

Win32 vs. native NT call.  The former doesn't support all flags and
memory protections the latter supports.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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 -