X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4ECC3390.8040909@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:43:12 +0100
From:	marco atzeri <marco DOT atzeri AT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: "Couldn't allocate heap" - tried rebasing
References:	<4EBD461E DOT 6080408 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <4EBD696F DOT 5030708 AT cornell DOT edu> <4EC2A265 DOT 5000702 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <4ECC0452 DOT 2090100 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu>
In-Reply-To:	<4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.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 11/22/2011 9:21 PM, Jesse Ziser wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 11:33 AM, Jesse Ziser wrote:

>>
>> Tried the new version of rebase. Did not fix the problem.
>> Tried rebase -s -i. No asterisks, so presumably no collisions.
>> Tried uninstalling Sophos. Did not fix the problem.
>> Tried the 2011-11-08 snapshot. Seems to fix the problem!
>>
>> I'm not comfortable deploying a snapshot throughout the building,
>> though. I will roll back to 1.5 for now and wait for that snapshot to
>> make it to a release. Thanks!
>
> Actually, I just noticed this remark:
>
> "In summary, current Windows implementations make it
> impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional
> fork failures are inevitable."
>
> in winsup/doc/overview2.sgml in the source tree. Does that mean that,
> even with the improvements mentioned above, we cannot expect important
> Cygwin apps/scripts to always work reliably in a post-WinXP world? My
> company has been moving from Win2K/XP to Win7, so this would be
> important info for us.
>
> So how serious is the above remark? I don't see anything quite that
> strongly-phrased in the FAQ. Maybe it should be mentioned there?
>

As user of W7/64 and latest shapshots, I only noticed that a rebasall
is needed more frequently than on XP.
After rebaseall things are usually smooth.

Regards
Marco


--
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

- Raw text -