X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu>
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>
Date:	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:08:38 -0500
Message-ID:	<CAG_2cTkVHCggBnQiCZ0Ts5HGUHwLOODduSnYKU4d=XpLp8bC8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: "Couldn't allocate heap" - tried rebasing
From:	Jon Clugston <jon DOT clugston AT gmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
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
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id pAN18uMB028941

>
> 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?
>

I would assume that "current Windows implementations" means XP and
above.  I have found it to be quite stable on Windows 7 once a rebase
is done.  I also believe that the possibility of "fork" failing has
always been there - even in Cygwin 1.5.  So, maybe the remark is not
quite as scary as it might at first appear.

--
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 -