delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Aug 3 13:42, David Rothenberger wrote: > On 8/3/2011 1:32 PM, David Rothenberger wrote: > > On 8/3/2011 1:19 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> Other than that I don't have an answer for you. There's only > >> so much you can do within the 32 bit address space. That's only one > >> reason why a 64 bit Cygwin would be a good idea. > > > > What was the motivation for putting the heap and mmaps above 0x80000000? > > Was there not enough space for them below? Would there be enough space > > below if all the DLLs were above? > > Rereading this, I realized it sounds a little snotty. I'm not trying to > second guess your decision; I was just curious. Feel free to ignore the > question. :) Naah, never mind. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |